Market uncertainty and the presidential campaign

TNR’s Brad Plumer had a line this afternoon that immediately made me chuckle. His headline read, “Does a Financial Crisis Help Romney?” and Plumer said:

Yeah, I know, this post plays into all the worst stereotypes about political journalists (there’s a market meltdown happening, and we just want to talk about the horse race…). The question here is: What about the GOP race? Romney’s starting to make his “I’m a business leader, I know what to do” pitch down in Florida — even if he’s just proposing the same old Bush-style tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Is that going to convince anyone?

I laughed because I’m just as shameless a political animal, and can relate to those “worst stereotypes.” For the record, upon seeing the global markets take a serious hit yesterday, and reading about the pressure on the Fed here in the U.S., my first thought had nothing to do with the presidential campaign and everything to do with financial consequences of a global economic slowdown. But, after a couple of hours, I’ll concede my thoughts did drift into, “I wonder what impact this might have on the White House race….”

To be sure, one of the least pressing angles to market uncertainty is a presidential primary. But seeing that this here is a political blog, and presumably you’re all interested in political events, it’s probably worth taking a moment to consider the political consequences of the market news.

And while I don’t know which candidate, if any, stands to benefit from the market crunch, I’m quite certain John McCain doesn’t.

Over the weekend, McCain made clear — indeed, he was quite candid about it — that after a quarter-century in Congress, he doesn’t know the first thing about economics.

Matt Yglesias, considering McCain’s persona and campaign narratives, added:

John McCain’s unquestionably a popular figure, but David Kusnet is also surely right that it’s hard to see him winning in bleak economic times if he keeps talking the way he was talking at his South Carolina victory speech. There’s just nothing in there whatsoever to suggest that McCain has any awareness of anyone experiencing any kind of financial difficulties. What’s more, I think it’ll actually be quite hard for him to pivot in a more sympathetic direction. After all, throughout all his flipping and flopping and back again of the past ten years, the “cares about people in economic pain” persona is one he’s never tried on. And I think he’s never tried it on because it runs contrary to his entire schtick, which is all about finding causes greater than ourselves, salvation through nationalism, etc., etc. On some emotional level, he probably thinks a woman who needs to declare bankruptcy because the racked up massive credit card bills while her uninsured husband was dying of cancer should just grin and bear it the way he did as a POW.

After what he’s been through, it’s probably hard to muster a ton of sympathy for workaday problems. And yet that’s what politics is all about. By the same token, though, I think it would be foolish to confidently predict economic conditions eleven months from now. Maybe things will get worse . . . maybe they’ll turn around. But if they don’t turn around, it does seem like potentially big trouble for McCain.

Agreed. McCain barely talks about the economy at all as a candidate, and when he does, he argues a) economic conditions are pretty good right now, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding; and b) making Bush’s tax cuts permanent, despite McCain’s votes against them, should solve our problems.

It’s not a landscape that plays to McCain’s strengths at all.

If all hell breaks loose…
Clinton benefits the most.

Just because:

She is Bill and Bill is her and Bill ran a good economy and we are all in this together…
Goo goo g’joob g’goo goo g’joob.
I am the Clinton… goo goo g’joob g’goo goo g’joob.
(Sung to the tune of: Don’t stop thinking about Bill’s term.)

On my screen it is all coming up Clinton right now…
She’s got Barack sliming himself with her lies…
Blocking relentless lies like Kerry in 04…
She’s got Edwards posing in his mirror thinking he’d make a pretty good adult veep…

So if the economy really breaks bad she simply can’t lose.

(Note: Just pretending here that I haven’t already called this one for the Clintons.)

  • I wonder how many people even know what kind of company(ies) Romney is so revered for running. One is a private equity investment firm. The other is a management consultant firm. The first kind usually buys companies, lays people off, and then resells the “trimmed down version.” The second is basically a high level temp agency.

  • I’m sure being a member of The Millionaire’s Club since 1987 gives Mr. McCain a keen insight into the troubles of the average Joe, who also knows how good it feels to be given hundreds of thousands of dollars by criminals who never expect to get anything in return. And who among us doesn’t know how it feels to cheat on our wives and then dump them for politically connected girls 17 years younger than we are?

    I tell you the guy knows how average Americans feel about stuff.

  • McCain also might have a problem if things like bank failures start happening since he was involved in this little Savings and Loan problem you might have heard about as part of a group of buddies known as the Keating Five. Economic collapse may remind people of that lovely chapter in the journey of the Straight Talk Express.

  • The Keating Five, good ol’ S&L meltdown. Thank goodness we learned our lesson and put in place robust regulation and required the sort of transparency in financial transactions that have completely prevented similar collapses.

  • While I could see Hillary benefiting, due mostly to 90’s nostalgia, I think Obama could come out the best. He’s pushing an FDR-Reagan positive thing that desperate people will gladly sign up for. Bill may have been the “Man from Hope”, but Obama IS hope. I haven’t been a supporter for long, but he really seems like a game changing kind of guy. The kind of guy that can ask people to take a little pain for a longterm gain and rally people behind a common cause. Because that’s what most people really want: To be a part of something bigger.

    With Hillary, I just see someone who’s already gunning for huge battles at every turn and is staging her next three moves assuming that her opponent is going to hit her harder with each one. But a big part of that is just who she is. A lot of people really hate her and she took a lot of bruises along the way. And sure, Obama’s going to get that too, but I see him more as the guy who goes for the quick jab before getting back on message, while for Hillary, the fight is the message. Sure, she might be doing it for a good cause, but it’ll still mainly be about the fight; and that’s exactly what the Republicans want. They want to throw Dems off message by making them fight all the time, and Obama seems like the kind of guy who knows when to get back on-topic.

    Overall, Hillary reminds me of the nice person who got locked into the wrong jail and now that she’s released, still has the jail mentality of fighting anyone who looks at her wrong. And Obama seems like the guy who will fight when he needs to, but would much rather find ways to avoid it. Hillary supporters insist that Republicans will attack Obama as much as Hillary, an arguable point, but all the same, I’d prefer to not have a president who seems to relish the fight as much as Hillary seems to.

  • Wow. I just re-read what I wrote and realized I got off-topic and failed to tie everything back together at the end. Overall, I think that economic woes will make people turn to a hopeful person like Obama; rather than a fighter like Clinton. I used to make the mistake of debating for debating’s sake, where you lose sight of what you were originally discussing and was more intent on besting the person I was debating with instead of convincing them of anything. That’s what I think Hillary does and will do as president. She’s just too caught up into the fight and sees too many enemies everywhere. I hate to say it, but I think she’s damaged goods and acts like it. We need someone who is looking toward the future; not someone who’s still debating the past.

  • CB wrote:

    I laughed because I’m just as shameless a political animal, and can relate to those “worst stereotypes.”

    I don’t know- you usually seem to have more integrity, and to be lauging at or denigrating the peole who more embody the stereotypes, although lately you kind of seem to have the flu.

  • If it’s not too late, Edwards and his two-America’s theme might benefit. For sure, the average citizen won’t. Many of us have our largest assets in our homes and in retirement savings tied in one way or another to the market. Rising costs and stagnant wages may be more immediate, but watching a decline in the value of investments we were counting on really is more frightening.

  • If it’s not too late, Edwards and his two-America’s theme might benefit. -beep52

    I agree, and I like his two-Americas framing, but I think it’s been too late for Edwards for a long time. Even early on, the story was Obama v. Clinton…heck, sometimes I think even the Republicans are an afterthought in this election cycle.

    I don’t know which candidate benefits most from a recession, but at the very least, I believe it is something the Democrats win on.

  • Luckily, we get to blame the right people for their incompetence and criminality in running the planet onto the rocks. 30 years of Republican mendacity finally comes home to roost.

    Whichever one of the pigs runs, we can hang it around his neck the way Hoover is remembered for causing the Depression.

  • The boost or hit from the economic woes we’re experiencing won’t migrate down to the individual candidate level for a while, but I think there has to be a big hit to the Republican party for presiding over this mess. The Dems may be been in charge of Congress since the ’06 elections, but they’ve been strangled by Republican threats and maneuvers.

    Bush was supposed to be the CEO president and Republicans were supposed to be the party of sound economic principles. Boy were those ideas all shot to hell. Bush, the war and a lousy economy are all albatrosses around the Repubs’ necks.

  • It’s time for Krugman and some savvy Democrats to get the pie charts, bar graphs and such out to show how exactly the economy was doing during Reagan – Bush1 – then changed for the better during the Clinton years – changed for the worse during Bush2.

    Do the same for budget deficits – American likability – Trade deficits – etc… Not that it would do any good educating the dead enders, but at least some of those so called Independents (ashamed Republicans) might finally decide to vote for the best candidate. The best candidate obviously not being one of the Republicans.

    What was that famous questions again? “Are you better off today then you were 4 years ago? Well unless you make more than 200K a year, the answer (inflation adjusted) should be that for change; change of Political Party in power.

  • Does anybody have the numbers to compare some of the following:

    Day 1 of Bush in office Jan 20, 2000 – November 6th 2008 (just before election)

    Price of oil:

    $ value in relation to Euro / British Pound /Canadian $:

    Budget Deficit/Surplus:

    Trade Deficit:

    Number of terrorist attacks worldwide before 9/11 and watch as the chart keeps going up after 9/11 once Bush’s brilliant idea of going into Iraq happens.

    Real inflation numbers (not the doctored ones from the Bush Administration)

  • Over the weekend, McCain made clear — indeed, he was quite candid about it — that after a quarter-century in Congress, he doesn’t know the first thing about economics. — CB

    Well, as the Deciderer keeps reminding us, you don’t hafta know nothing; a C-student can run Amurrica jes fine.

  • Comments are closed.