Tuesday was a day to be nervous at President Bush's re-election campaign headquarters.
Not because of more problems in Iraq, or because of some new story about the president's National Guard service, or even because of the controversy that will be generated by the president's endorsement of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Rather, the source of anxiety lies in news that will get less attention: a new reading on Americans' confidence in the economy.
The Conference Board, the premier authority on this question, said its index of consumer confidence dropped sharply in February, to 87.3 from 96.4 in January. That is a glaring sign that voters are worried about where the economy is headed -- a worry surely attributable in part to rising concerns about jobs disappearing. Worse for the president, the number doesn't appear to be an aberration; earlier this month, the University of Michigan's similar survey of consumer sentiment fell just as sharply.
Keep up with the latest news on Campaign 2004, get a look at coming primaries and caucuses, including current delegate counts, and see where candidates stand on key issues.
Why is this so significant? It has been unclear for months whether the economic attitudes of voters this year will be shaped by the overall performance of the economy, which is pretty good, or by underlying insecurities that might persist despite decent economic performance. The consumer-confidence numbers suggest that insecurity might well be trumping performance as a political indicator in this election cycle.
"I always thought the [economic] growth rate was the key," says Scott Reed, a Republican activist who ran Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign. "If you were over 4%, you'd be over the hurdle because you'd have enough job growth." And indeed, the economy is forecast to grow about 4.2% this year. But now, Mr. Reed says, "consumer confidence may be a better barometer this cycle."
The most important question political pros ask themselves about any presidential election is very basic: What is this election going to be about? The answer isn't always as obvious as it may seem. This year, exit polls taken after primary elections suggest there are three giant issues: Iraq, health care and the economy.
That creates a fascinating political backdrop for the campaign, and one that suggests a close and hard-fought battle in which economic satisfaction may well tip the balance. To see why, look inside the most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
On health care, Americans give the Democrats a huge edge. When asked which party they think does a better job handling health issues, 48% of Americans surveyed last month named the Democrats and 22% named the Republicans -- a giant, 26-point edge for Democrats. (The remainder named both parties, or neither.)
When asked which party they trusted more to handle Iraq, Americans said -- despite all the Bush administration's woes in coping with the violence and expense of the Iraq occupation -- that they trusted the Republicans more, 48% to 23%. That's a 25-point Republican edge on Iraq, almost mirroring the Democrats' edge on health care.
Which leaves the economy. When asked which party they thought did a better job handling it, those surveyed split right down the middle -- 36% citing Democrats, 36% citing Republicans. The conclusion seems clear: Despite all the focus on Iraq, the economy still may be ground zero in deciding this year's presidential election. And neither side has any significant advantage going into the general-election campaign that lies just ahead.
In that environment, if worries about job security trump the actual performance of the economy, Mr. Bush has a problem. The specific danger for the president is that the outsourcing of jobs abroad may be turning into the premier metaphor for economic performance, eclipsing solid growth rates, low interest rates and a robust stock market, all of which ought to be producing confidence.
A look at Ohio illustrates the president's problem. It is one of six states Mr. Bush won by five percentage points or less in 2000. It also is the largest of those six states, and the only one of the big industrial states in the Midwest with a Republican governor. In short, Ohio is a state Mr. Bush should and probably needs to hang on to, if the general election is going to be anywhere near as close as the 2000 election was. But the unemployment rate in Ohio is 6%, according to the latest figures, above the 5.6% national average and up significantly from 3.9% when Mr. Bush took office.
Such numbers produce the insecurity reflected in consumer-confidence numbers. Not coincidentally, Mr. Bush's Ohio job-approval rating just went below 50% for the first time in the Ohio Poll, sponsored by the University of Cincinnati (See text of the poll). Mr. Bush and his team face two similar but distinct tasks. One is to create jobs. The second -- and perhaps more difficult -- is to convince wary voters that jobs actually are being created fast enough.
Not because of more problems in Iraq, or because of some new story about the president's National Guard service, or even because of the controversy that will be generated by the president's endorsement of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Rather, the source of anxiety lies in news that will get less attention: a new reading on Americans' confidence in the economy.
The Conference Board, the premier authority on this question, said its index of consumer confidence dropped sharply in February, to 87.3 from 96.4 in January. That is a glaring sign that voters are worried about where the economy is headed -- a worry surely attributable in part to rising concerns about jobs disappearing. Worse for the president, the number doesn't appear to be an aberration; earlier this month, the University of Michigan's similar survey of consumer sentiment fell just as sharply.
Keep up with the latest news on Campaign 2004, get a look at coming primaries and caucuses, including current delegate counts, and see where candidates stand on key issues.
Why is this so significant? It has been unclear for months whether the economic attitudes of voters this year will be shaped by the overall performance of the economy, which is pretty good, or by underlying insecurities that might persist despite decent economic performance. The consumer-confidence numbers suggest that insecurity might well be trumping performance as a political indicator in this election cycle.
"I always thought the [economic] growth rate was the key," says Scott Reed, a Republican activist who ran Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign. "If you were over 4%, you'd be over the hurdle because you'd have enough job growth." And indeed, the economy is forecast to grow about 4.2% this year. But now, Mr. Reed says, "consumer confidence may be a better barometer this cycle."
The most important question political pros ask themselves about any presidential election is very basic: What is this election going to be about? The answer isn't always as obvious as it may seem. This year, exit polls taken after primary elections suggest there are three giant issues: Iraq, health care and the economy.
That creates a fascinating political backdrop for the campaign, and one that suggests a close and hard-fought battle in which economic satisfaction may well tip the balance. To see why, look inside the most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
On health care, Americans give the Democrats a huge edge. When asked which party they think does a better job handling health issues, 48% of Americans surveyed last month named the Democrats and 22% named the Republicans -- a giant, 26-point edge for Democrats. (The remainder named both parties, or neither.)
When asked which party they trusted more to handle Iraq, Americans said -- despite all the Bush administration's woes in coping with the violence and expense of the Iraq occupation -- that they trusted the Republicans more, 48% to 23%. That's a 25-point Republican edge on Iraq, almost mirroring the Democrats' edge on health care.
Which leaves the economy. When asked which party they thought did a better job handling it, those surveyed split right down the middle -- 36% citing Democrats, 36% citing Republicans. The conclusion seems clear: Despite all the focus on Iraq, the economy still may be ground zero in deciding this year's presidential election. And neither side has any significant advantage going into the general-election campaign that lies just ahead.
In that environment, if worries about job security trump the actual performance of the economy, Mr. Bush has a problem. The specific danger for the president is that the outsourcing of jobs abroad may be turning into the premier metaphor for economic performance, eclipsing solid growth rates, low interest rates and a robust stock market, all of which ought to be producing confidence.
A look at Ohio illustrates the president's problem. It is one of six states Mr. Bush won by five percentage points or less in 2000. It also is the largest of those six states, and the only one of the big industrial states in the Midwest with a Republican governor. In short, Ohio is a state Mr. Bush should and probably needs to hang on to, if the general election is going to be anywhere near as close as the 2000 election was. But the unemployment rate in Ohio is 6%, according to the latest figures, above the 5.6% national average and up significantly from 3.9% when Mr. Bush took office.
Such numbers produce the insecurity reflected in consumer-confidence numbers. Not coincidentally, Mr. Bush's Ohio job-approval rating just went below 50% for the first time in the Ohio Poll, sponsored by the University of Cincinnati (See text of the poll). Mr. Bush and his team face two similar but distinct tasks. One is to create jobs. The second -- and perhaps more difficult -- is to convince wary voters that jobs actually are being created fast enough.
