Polls say jobs are the issue, and Obama is leading Romney in eight swing states while Romney leads in only three. Perhaps this is because Republicans say Romney will be “Bush updated” and will do as he’s told by House Republicans.
When we go on the ground into the swing states, Real Clear Politics finds that Obama is leading Romney in eight out of the 14 swing states, with Romney leading in three and polling unavailable in three others.
The unemployment rate, a key measure of economic recovery, has dropped more sharply in several swing states than in the nation as a whole. A resurgence in manufacturing is helping the economy _ and Obama’s chances _ in the industrial Midwestern states of Ohio and Michigan.
And Arizona, Nevada and Florida, where unemployment remains high, are getting some relief from an uptick in tourism…
In 2010, the economic misery helped Republicans retake control of the House and gain seats in the Senate. But the Republicans cannot count on a repeat when voters return to the polls _ with much more at stake _ on Nov. 6.
If these numbers are even close to accurate, it’s odd that Obama and Romney are polling so closely in the last few weeks, since Romney plans to double down on Bush economic policies.
A new poll conducted by Ipsos Media on behalf of career-website Glassdoor shows that 67% of Americans want the next President to focus on getting Americans back to work. 62% of men and 71% of women want to increase taxes on the rich. That means that the majority of voters should favor Obama’s economic policies.
Obama has created one million more private sector jobs than Bush at the same point in his presidency. In January of this year, Ray Medeiros wrote, “In the third year of Bush’s first term (2003) the economy created four hundred thousand (400,000) private sector jobs. In contrast, President Obama in the third year of his first term created almost one and a half MILLION (1,400,000) jobs. Obama created ONE MILLION more private sector jobs than President George W. Bush.”
Think Progress reported this morning that the Press Secretary for the Republican National Committee said the economic plan is going to be just like the Bush years only “updated”:
ESPUELAS: Now, how different is that concept from what were the policies of the Bush administration? And the reason I ask that is because there’s some analysis now that is being published talking about the Bush years being the slowest period of job creation since those statistics were created. Is this a different program or is this that program just updated?
FRANCESCHI: I think it’s that program, just updated.
Romney isn’t going to stop at being a W update. We’re told by Grover Norquist that he’s going to “do as he’s told” by the House Tea Party caucus. All the base needs to worry about is whether or not Romney can hold a pen to sign the bills they send up to him.
The Daily Beast reported that Grover Norquist’s quote from CPAC was rather unflattering of Mitt Romney and rather revealing:
We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don’t need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. … We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don’t need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate.
The requirement for president?
Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States.
As the Daily Beast points out, this plan is rather risky since the House Republicans have a disapproval rating of 75%. One can posit that the 25% who approve of the House Republicans are the same 25% or so who still approve of George W Bush. Those folks are in luck.
So, the Republican Plan for Mitt Romney is for him to be a Bush/Ryan hybrid; Bush on steroids.
Of course, under Bush the jobs didn’t look so great. The Wall Street Journal put it in perspective in January of 2009, “The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.”
Perhaps these are the reasons Mitt Romney is playing coy with his economic policies, refusing to give details because he knows the details will be unpopular. Interestingly, he call tell the Republican base that they should just trust him and they will if Fox News tells them to.
Republicans are telling the people that Mitt Romney is going to be George W Bush only “updated” (how, they won’t say). Then they tell us that he doesn’t need to have any ideas because he is going to be a lap dog for the House Republicans; the same House Republicans who drove this country into a lowered credit rating, enacted a legislative war on women, and spent all of their time chasing social issues instead of working on jobs.
Given reality, it’s frighteningly fascinating to watch as Americans say jobs are the issue and at the same time, many of these same voters think Romney would improve the economy. The right wing frame of the “businessman” being more qualified to run government than a policy oriented constitutional lawyer is still impacting the opinions of too many voters. All they need to do is look at the numbers, but in the world of infotainment, numbers aren’t sexy.
But there’s hope for reality in the swing states, where many of Obama’s policies have vastly improved the Bush economy, and the voters know it.