X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Coffee House

‘Are you better off?’ won’t be a winning debate line for Mitt Romney

3 October 2012

4:02 PM

3 October 2012

4:02 PM

‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?’ That was the question Ronald Reagan told Americans to ask themselves when choosing their President in 1980, and it’s a line Mitt Romney’s campaign has been hoping would work for them this time around. ‘The president can say a lot of things, but he can’t tell you you are better off,’ Paul Ryan told a crowd in North Carolina last month. And it might be one of the ‘zingers’ Romney throws out in tonight’s debate. But the attack isn’t looking nearly as potent against Obama as it did against Jimmy Carter.

For one thing, Ryan’s claim might not actually be true. Sure, the unemployment rate in August (8.1 per cent) was still slightly higher than it was when Obama took office in January 2009 (7.8 per cent). But it has fallen by a full percentage point in the past year — and it seems that is the period Americans really think about when deciding if they’re better off.

And while the number of jobs is still slightly lower than when Obama took over (133.56 million in January 2009, 133.30 million in August 2012), it may well have fully recovered by election day. (In fact, new revisions suggest it may actually have done so already.) And it’s worth noting that private sector employment has risen by 415,000 under Obama — contrary to Republican claims, he’s cut government employment by 676,000.

[Alt-Text]


Other measures also suggest that the US economy is stronger now than when Obama took office. GDP is up 6.6 per cent in real terms, having grown at an average annual rate of 2 per cent. And the stock market — as measured by the S&P 500 — has risen by 72 per cent.

A recent CNN poll does show that 42 per cent of voters think they’re financially worse off now than four years ago, against 37 per cent who say they’re better off. It also finds two-thirds of voters thinking the economy’s in a poor state, although that’s down from 86 per cent when Obama took over. But while Romney won’t have much trouble convincing voters that the economy’s in bad shape, it’s much tougher for him to get them to blame Obama for it. The same poll finds just 38 per cent blaming Obama and the Democrats for the country’s current economic problems, against 54 per cent blaming George W Bush and the Republicans. And as the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent has pointed out, the polling lead Romney had enjoyed on economic competence evaporated after the conventions.

In fact, market research firm Penn Schoen Berland has tested Romney’s ‘better off’ line (as well as 23 other messages from both candidates), and the results aren’t good for the Republican nominee, as Billy Mann, Penn Schoen Berland’s managing director, told Politico:

‘Mann said one thing he found “beyond striking” was that one of the Romney campaign’s main themes — “are you better off now than you were four years ago?” — is not making an impact among independent voters…

“If Romney hopes to close the campaign by putting that question to Americans — ‘are you better off now than you were four years ago?’ — it’s pretty likely that Mitt Romney’s not going to end up better off than he was four years ago,” Mann said.’

Romney’s problem is that he’s failed to present a positive vision of a Romney Presidency. While the Republican campaign has been fixed on attacking the President, Obama and his team have worked hard to frame this election as a choice — between his plan and Romney’s. Judging by his five-point lead in the polls at the moment, Obama’s strategy is clearly the more successful one.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close