Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats are searching for explanations to their thorough defeat in the midterm elections. Aside from obvious considerations low turnout, sixth year election, etc. there are several arguments that the economy was a big reason Democrats lost so thoroughly. It was polled, once again, as themost importantissue concerning voters this election.

However, this stance presents a bit of a paradox. For one, the economy is not all that bad. In fact, its doing pretty well. The US isoutperformingother economies recovering from theglobal recession. The US has steadily added jobs each month for several years. Unemployment is below 6% for the first time since 2008. The stock market has been breaking records in recent months and performing well generally for the last few years. Gas prices are low. The housing market is recovering. Factory production and jobs are up. Corporations are enjoying record-breaking profits. Economic confidence is higher than it has been since 2008. Despite a slow recover, the economy isrelatively strong.

This normally bodes well for the incumbent presidents party in election years. That was obviously not the case on Nov. 4.

Some argue this disjuncture is because of income inequality. Many pollsters, political analysts, and reporters are arguing that, while the economy may beimproving,individualvotersare notreapingthebenefits. And therefore, they are not rewarding the incumbent party in the way that they normally would.

This is almost certainly not the case. The overwhelming majority ofresearch shows voters are much more likely to consider the national economy than their pocketbook. Individual economic circumstances may play a small role, but, for the most part, perceptions of national economic conditions overwhelm other economic considerations.

Similarly, inequality is not new. The income gap started growing in the early 1970s. Unless the US has reached some unseen tipping point, it is unclear why income inequality would matter in this election and not in others. For example, if inequality was to have affected voting decisions, the relationship between the economy and voting would have likely started todecouplein the 1990s, when inequality increasedsharplyunder President Clinton. However, that hasnt occurred.

Its more likely that Democrats failed to affect voters perceptions of the national economy. As Lynn Vavreckpoints out, voters perceptions of the economy matter more in midterm elections than in presidential years. And further, partisanship has an effect on perceptions of the economy. It acts as a lens through which perceptions of the state of the nations economy are filtered. Democrats ability to change Republicans perceptions of the economy was likely minimal.

However, it is also possible they failed to convince their own partisans that the economy was, in fact, performing well. Democrats attempts to localize their races and distance themselves from the president also put distance between them and a solid national economy. During the campaigns, we heard very little about steady growth, lower unemployment, or the other factors that could have played well for Democrats. Its entirely possible many did not believe these trends were good enough to campaign on. Its also likely that many states in which these races took place still had struggling economies, which, according to a new paper by Stephen Ansolabehere, Marc Meredith, and Erik Snowberg in the journal Economics & Politics(November 2014),can affect perceptions of the national economy. However, that wasnt the case in Iowa, Colorado, New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Virginia, all of which have unemployment below the national average. Its also possible that so many fundamentals pointed away from Democrats, it was never a messaging battle they could have won.

Regardless, the key takeaway is that income inequality was almost certainly not one of the structural issues that contributed to the Democrats defeat this Tuesday.

Joshua Huder publishes his Rule 22 blog at http://rule22.wordpress.com.

Go here to read the rest:
Why Democrats lost the election: Income inequality did not affect the midterms