Republican political strategists worry that a weak economy will hurt John McCain this November. This fear makes intuitive sense, but is there any data to back it up? My favorite blog written by academics recently addressed this question. University of Houston professor Noah Kaplan notes some interesting data from a Time magazine poll conducted in late June suggesting voters blame the incumbent White House party less than you might think.
The survey asked which candidate--Obama or McCain--would do a better job handling the economy. The results show the candidates virtually tied among all voters--42 percent said Obama; 39 percent said McCain. The same holds true with "swing voters"--33 percent said McCain would do a better job while 31 percent Obama would.
Next the poll asked voters if they thought McCain would be largely independent of President Bush or continue his economic policies. The results were split among all voters while 50 percent of "swing voters" said McCain would be indepdent and 37 percent said he would continue Bush's policies.
Kaplan concludes with this--including just a wee bit of pro-Obama tilt:
The above breakdown suggests that McCain is less burdened by Bush's economic record than might be anticipated; Obama is going to have a difficult time "tarring" McCain with the economic failures of the Bush administration. To the extent that the election is about the economy, Obama needs to be seen as the superior manager. But the public will not assume this based upon the current administration's failures alone. Obama needs to be proactive and emphasize an economic program that is seen as a credible alternative to that offered by McCain and the Republicans. Otherwise, McCain has a real chance of winning the swing voters.
McCain should also highlight the role of the Democrats in Congress when it comes to economic stagnation. The majority party supports the largest tax increase in history in its current budget. That can't help them among voters who want economic growth.
