On Politics: The economy is strong, so why don’t voters feel better about it?
It's the economic vibe, stupid
The latest, with 48 days to go
The war on inflation is all but won. That was the message from the Federal Reserve on Wednesday when it cut interest rates by half a percentage point, making a surprisingly large move that hands the Biden administration a big win on an issue that has caused Democrats — not to mention millions of Americans — big headaches over the last few years. It's the latest in a run of good economic news for President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, even though the low unemployment rate has begun to tick up. Writing this morning, my colleague Jim Tankersley summed up the sunny data this way: The price of gasoline has fallen below $3 a gallon in much of the South and Midwest and is nearing a three-year low nationally. Spiking grocery prices have slowed to a crawl. Mortgage rates are down more than a percentage point from their recent peak. The Census Bureau reported last week that the typical household income rose faster than prices last year for the first time since the pandemic. The overall inflation rate has returned to near historically normal levels. The real question for November, though, is whether all that good news will be enough to improve the economic vibe. Biden and Harris have led the country through a period of economic growth and job gains while inflation came down, but they have struggled to turn those achievements into broadly happy feelings among voters. The gap between the good news about the economy and the way voters are perceiving it has turned into one of the defining — and for Democrats, one of the most confounding — dynamics of this election. The pollsPolling shows voters are feeling persistently sour about the economy. The most recent national poll by The New York Times and Siena College found that just 2 percent of the likely electorate considered the economy to be "excellent," while 21 percent called it "good." Twenty-eight percent of voters called it "only fair," while nearly half — 49 percent — rated it "poor." One of those voters was Kelly Hunt, 56, a former nurse from Elyria, Ohio, who now relies on a fixed disability income to feed her five grandchildren. Hunt, who told me she was a registered Democrat who backed Hillary Clinton in 2016 and former President Donald Trump in 2020, said none of the economic gains in the news felt as if they had filtered down to her. She goes to multiple stores to buy chicken and beef, wherever they are on sale, and takes her grandchildren out to McDonald's only if she has coupons. "They can keep saying anything they want to, but when I go to the store and I can't buy everything I used to and I can't fill up my tanks, I know they're not telling the truth," she said. Hunt hasn't decided whom she'll vote for, but she knows her decision will have a lot to do with the economy. "There's a lot of things I don't agree with, with Donald Trump," Hunt said, "but the economy was in a way better place with him." Wages have not caught upHunt illustrates a key problem for Democrats as they try to sell the good news about the economy: Inflation may well be cooling, but prices are still higher than they were during Trump's presidency. And that's what is shaping people's perception of the economy. "They perceive that even though inflation is accelerating less, their wages have not caught up — that's the fundamental problem," said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who previously did polling for the Biden campaign. "They want to go back to where they were, and in some cases have an idealized view of where they were." I was curious how the economy of today actually stacks up against the pre-Covid economy under Trump, and so Jim Tankersley, our economic policy correspondent, kindly crunched some numbers for me. Jim found that, in September 2019, there was lower inflation, lower mortgage rates and somewhat lower unemployment than there is now. (After that, of course, came the 2020 recession, which caused negative economic growth and a huge spike in unemployment.) Today, however, there is stronger year-over-year economic growth and stronger real median household income growth over the previous calendar year. That has allowed Republicans to hammer a message about high prices, while Democrats make a more complex argument about how they lowered inflation without so far setting off a new recession. "Inflation has gone down," Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said this afternoon. "We cannot forget where we were when we walked into this administration." Lake said that Harris had rolled out popular ideas, like banning price gouging at grocery stores, but that more was needed. "We're all over the map. We haven't laid out a plan. Harris is trying," Lake said, but she noted that her campaign began only about two months ago. "We're not, as a party, identified with an economic plan to take on cost of living." Democrats have work to do on their economic message, she said — and they need to do it fast.
There's no escaping politics — even on 'Survivor'The reality show "Survivor" is generally a refuge from politics — the last place where no one cares who wins the presidential election — but it might be a little different this season, which premieres tonight. My colleague Kellen Browning, who wrote about this political twist with Alexandra Berzon, tells us a little more. Kellen, I'm going to start with an important question. "Survivor" is still on? Yes! "Survivor" is still going strong 47 seasons in, and it still gets millions of viewers each week. Who doesn't want to watch people brave the elements and backstab one another in a strategic game? And you are one of those viewers. I have to admit I have not seen every season start to finish. But I have seen the vast majority, and I know what happens in the rest. Thank you very much for lending your expertise to this newsletter! Your article describes the show as one place where American politics doesn't usually show up — but that's not exactly the case this year. Why not? This season, "Survivor" cast Jon Lovett, a former Obama speechwriter who is a co-host of the "Pod Save America" podcast. We truly don't know yet whether that means there will be more political discussion this season than in the past — a low bar to clear, because "Survivor" has generally not featured much political fare — but just the fact that he's appearing on the island feels notable. What does Lovett say about why he's joining the show? Lovett said he applied purely for the love of the show. And he said he didn't consider during the casting process whether his starkly political background would be an asset or a liability. But in an interview with me and Alexandra, he reflected on how "Survivor" is an "experiment in both deprivation and democracy." He said it was refreshing to have an example of players forming a democracy and voting without the nastiness of partisan politics. What has watching "Survivor" taught you about covering politics? The show's greatest players over the years (some of whom we spoke to for this article) have stood out for their ability to cajole, charm, trick and pull on other contestants' heartstrings. I think some of the most successful politicians demonstrate similar abilities. I have heard that everyone who watches "Survivor" secretly believes they could win. Do you think you could? I personally believe the former players who have said in interviews that it's a brutal, difficult game. That being said, I think I would be good at the social element — forming bonds and fostering trust with allies to make it further in the game. I'm less sure how I would perform on zero sleep and minimal food. Read past editions of the newsletter here. If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Have feedback? Ideas for coverage? We'd love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com.
|
posted by Goatz @ 3:50 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home