Today brings some surprisingly good news about the economy—or at least about people's views of it. The University of Michigan's consumer sentiment survey took its second big jump upward this month after a big jump in December:
According to the Wall Street Journal, this is the biggest two-month spike since 1991. Consumer sentiment still isn't as high as it was throughout the economic expansion of the teens, but it's getting there.
The University of Michigan press release says the index has gone up even among Republicans. Maybe this means the fact that the economy has been great is finally breaking through the Great Wall of Fox News. There's only so long you can deny reality, right?
Good news. The "narrative" will, I think, drive the election, especially among those really not paying attention.
It is good news, but will it be good enough? Perhaps it will pull Biden even with Trump, and we will have another nail-biter election.
Or perhaps it won't. It will be "perceptions of improving economy" vs "Biden is too old". Lots of people have already made up their minds on the age question. In addition, Republican efforts to tarnish Biden's image continue unabated. Hunter Biden has agreed to testify before the House in a private session (what?), so the committee will be able to cherry-pick, lie, and take his testimony out of context.
It didn't have to be this way. The economy would still be improving even Biden had decided not to run again, and he could have transferred this success to a different nominee without his baggage. Biden and the Democrats, but for their lack of wisdom and courage, could have been looking at a win of landslide proportions.
But I guess having a nail-biter allows them to raise more money.
I think lots of people aren't really paying attention to the election at this point. With interest rate cuts on the horizon the economic outlook should be pretty good for Biden by November.
How does Biden "transfer this success to a different nominee"? Does he magically anoint someone? And if it was someone other than his VP, how does that not start a bitter war within the Democratic Party?
Yeah, I think he could magically anoint someone. If his VP doesn't like it, she could freely contest his choice in primaries. In general, he could throw it open for anyone to win in primaries. I thought we were a democracy? Even the Republicans have candidates other than Trump running in primaries. (Not that it will do those other candidates much good).
Biden transfers his good economic record to other candidates because he is a Democrat, they are Democrats, and the economic recovery is the result of Democratic policies. Biden then becomes a popular "elder" statesman, who would have a hell of a lot more popularity and influence than he has today.
Yeah, I think he could magically anoint someone
No, he most certainly could not. The candidate who is nominated by the convention is the one with the most delegates. If Joe Biden were to bow out at the last minute, we would have a confusing and potentially damaging situation on our hands, and it is highly likely Vice President Harris would become the nominee. I trust you’re aware of some of her political shortcomings (I do think, as it happens, she's pretty likely to become president in other three years or so, when/if Biden resigns in his second term). Much of the age thing is a proxy for “I don’t support Joe because I think national conditions are bad.” if Joe were 47, a lot of poll respondents would say "he’s too inexperienced." Reagan was very widely dismissed as being too old, but he came roaring back in 1984 as national conditions improved. Suddenly, strangely, his age wasn't much of an albatross! I wonder why.
I'm thinking before the convention. Well before. He would "anoint" someone by his endorsement.
Reagan's age wasn't much of a factor because Mondale wouldn't or couldn't campaign against him on that account, largely due to his own "youth and inexperience."
How could Biden transfer his administration's economic successes to a newly "anointed" candidate, who, if other than Kamala Harris, wasn't involved in implementing any of those policies?
I saw a video of several people on Fox referring to "the Biden recession." I guess they may have stopped doing that (if so, I wonder when). I saw something indicating a possible shift in rightwingland from "the economy is bad" to "the economy is rigged."
There's only so long you can deny reality, right?
People really hate inflation, so it hasn't surprised me that they've clung to their angst over rising prices. I've been of the opinion that Biden's supposedly grim reelection prospects are mainly about inflation hangover, and that, provided there's no flare-up, the outlook for a second term would improve as we move deeper into the year (there's simply a lag effect from the memory of the price surge in 2021/2022, and we have to wait it out).
Obviously the other fatal shoe that could potentially drop would be a recession. But, although I don't think anyone can rule it out (that yield curve is looking nasty), recession, too, seems to be fading as a risk in 2024.
Drudge, incidentally, was loudly headlining a new poll showing Joe edging Trump in a head-to-head. Know hope.
I think this is about right. Let's hope.
No, it isn't inflation. Consumer sentiment and other things, for example inflation expectation, recovered quickly after previous major episodes of inflation. The difference this time is the massive Republican propaganda and the fact that MAGAs swallow Trump's blatant lies about the economy. Krugman has more data on the huge partisan difference in economic perceptions:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/09/opinion/economy-survey-republicans.html?unlocked_article_code=1.MU0.62sV.600As16sg-jP&smid=url-share
I'll be damned if I can find that poll. Help me out. The latest poll (Jan 17) by HarrisX has Trump at 52 and Biden at 48. Deadly numbers, given that Biden needs to win by 2 to 5 points to overcome the R electoral college advantage.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
I'll be damned if I can find that poll. Help me out.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-suffers-double-polling-blow-1861753
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/biden-trump-economist-november-poll-b2456245.html
Ipsos/Yougov
Thanks. Still not very impressive for Biden, let alone statistically significant. But perhaps an improvement.
Time for Joe and the Democrats to start leaning in on this hard. The economy is GREAT! Bidenomics is a miracle! Just say it all day long every day.
“The economy always does better under democrats.”
- donald trump
https://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-2004-donald-trump-200800846.html
Subpoenas for Hunter Biden. Loose bolts on Boeing planes. Houthi missiles launched from Yemen. Aid for Ukraine. Pro-Palestinian protests on campus.
Virtually every item in the news is reported through the prism of what it means for the November election. The consumer sentiment index is an item that doesn't get nearly as much attention from the average joe or jane (or average journo either) but may be more important than all the other items people get to worry about.
The jump in the U Michigan survey is absolutely remarkable. (Side note: I think the surge happening as the stock market hits new all-time highs is not a mere coincidence.)
So what does it mean for November? Some time ago I had looked at the Consumer Confidence Index (CCI) from OECD Data. It's a slightly different scale but generally tracks other sentiment surveys. Chart is here:
https://data.oecd.org/leadind/consumer-confidence-index-cci.htm
You can select US only, with data from Jan 1960 to Nov 2023. I looked specifically at the last 10 presidential election years (1984-2020), in which the Dem and Rep parties each won 5 times, and the Incumbent and Opposition parties each won 5 times.
Pos/Neg Trend:
Was November of election year higher (Pos trend) or lower (Neg trend) than previous November?
100 +/-:
Was CCI above 100 (100+ = net optimism) or below (100- = net pessimism) in November of election year?
How did the CCI measure up for parties in presidential elections?
Pos/Neg Trend
-5 of 7 times Positive trend: wins for Incumbent party (exceptions: '92, '16)
-all 3 times Negative trend: wins for Opposition party ('00, '08, '20)
100 +/- Indicator
-5 of 6 times 100+ (Optimism): wins for Republican party (exception: '96)
-all 4 times 100- (Pessimism): wins for Democratic party ('92, '08, '12, '20)
Takeaways:
-A Positive trend in CCI is a good and necessary thing for the Incumbent party.
-A Pessimistic CCI reading is good for Democrats. An Optimistic reading is generally better for Republicans. Counter to conventional wisdom, this could mean the electorate trusts Dems more when the economy is a worry, and only when the economy is not a front-and-center issue do voters put Republicans in charge.
The latest CCI reading for OECD Data is 97.13 in Nov 2023. (Its last reading of 100+ was March 2020, when the pandemic began.)
Ideally for Joe Biden, that number should be higher in Nov 2024. But not too high. Above 100, and it could mean economic worries have faded to a degree that Republicans may gain an advantage.
Based on the media we have these days, I doubt that will be a problem for Joe Biden.
------
If you want a breakout for each of the past 10 election years, here it is:
1984: Pos/100+/Inc/R
1988: Pos/100+/Inc/R
1992: Pos/100-/Opp/D
1996: Pos/100+/Ind/D
2000: Neg/100+/Opp/R
2004: Pos/100+/Inc/R
2008: Neg/100-/Opp/D
2012: Pos/100-/Inc/D
2016: Pos/100+/Opp/R
2020: Neg/100-/Opp/D