This is in response to David Horn
There is more. Donald Trump (or someone like him) is a key element I believe. Trump won the nomination after embracing several themes that when incompatible with movement conservatism (the reigning ideology since the reconstructive president Ronald Reagan). Other presidents had challenged this ideology before (Buchanan in 1992 and 1996, Tancredo in 2008, Huckabee in 2008 and 2012) but none had gained traction. Trump did, which shows that the movement conservatism ideology is losing it potency, 36 years after it was established. Note: the New Deal ideology established by reconstructive president Franklin Roosevelt had lost potency by 1976 when economic liberals Mo Udall and “Scoop” Jackson lost to conservative Democrat Jimmy Carter. In some ways, the 2016 election is for Republicans what 1976 was for Democrats.
The economy will almost certainly not go south in 2018 in a way that would exert a negative effect on the incumbent party’s prospects. Nevertheless, despite apparent prosperity the president’s poll numbers are poor and have been for a long time. In the recent government shutdown, Republicans are receiving most of the blame, which makes sense since they are the party holding the White House, but they also got the blame for the 2013 shutdown when Democrats held the White House.
These observations suggest Republicans are not benefitting from favorable events such as the strong economy. One reason for this is the fact that wage growth has been anemic for decades (real unskilled wages in 2016 were no higher than they were in 1981) despite the fact that for 9 years out of the last 21 we have seen unemployment levels lower than at any time during the much-vaunted Reagan years of the 1980’s. Working class people no longer expect low unemployment to benefit them.
On the other hand, stocks have been on a tear, swelling 401k accounts. In the aftermath of the tech wreck and 2008 financial crisis, 401k investors have learned that what goes up can go down. Everyone I know believes the market is high, but they are still invested. If the market does go down everyone can’t sell (who will be buying?). So while nice, the rising market is worrisome, so Republicans do not get positive credit for the soaring market since Trump was elected. On the other hand, if stocks do go south, Republicans will get the full blame for the bear market that ensues because of their (stock) investment-stimulating tax cut will have blown up a bigger bubble than existed when Trump was elected.
There is a fundamental asymmetry that exists in this (4T) era. The party in power cannot get full credit for low unemployment because it doesn’t boost wages, nor can they get full credit for the rising stock market because of bubble fears resulting from recent experience in the post-2000 and post-2007 markets. Yet they will get full blame for any bad stuff that happens. Even if the economy stays good, there is plenty of bad stuff that can happen. It is entirely possible for Republicans to lose the House this November despite record-low unemployment and all-time highs in the stock market.
If Republicans are losing even in the face of the most positive fundamentals possible, what happens when Lady Luck turns against them?
There is more. Donald Trump (or someone like him) is a key element I believe. Trump won the nomination after embracing several themes that when incompatible with movement conservatism (the reigning ideology since the reconstructive president Ronald Reagan). Other presidents had challenged this ideology before (Buchanan in 1992 and 1996, Tancredo in 2008, Huckabee in 2008 and 2012) but none had gained traction. Trump did, which shows that the movement conservatism ideology is losing it potency, 36 years after it was established. Note: the New Deal ideology established by reconstructive president Franklin Roosevelt had lost potency by 1976 when economic liberals Mo Udall and “Scoop” Jackson lost to conservative Democrat Jimmy Carter. In some ways, the 2016 election is for Republicans what 1976 was for Democrats.
The economy will almost certainly not go south in 2018 in a way that would exert a negative effect on the incumbent party’s prospects. Nevertheless, despite apparent prosperity the president’s poll numbers are poor and have been for a long time. In the recent government shutdown, Republicans are receiving most of the blame, which makes sense since they are the party holding the White House, but they also got the blame for the 2013 shutdown when Democrats held the White House.
These observations suggest Republicans are not benefitting from favorable events such as the strong economy. One reason for this is the fact that wage growth has been anemic for decades (real unskilled wages in 2016 were no higher than they were in 1981) despite the fact that for 9 years out of the last 21 we have seen unemployment levels lower than at any time during the much-vaunted Reagan years of the 1980’s. Working class people no longer expect low unemployment to benefit them.
On the other hand, stocks have been on a tear, swelling 401k accounts. In the aftermath of the tech wreck and 2008 financial crisis, 401k investors have learned that what goes up can go down. Everyone I know believes the market is high, but they are still invested. If the market does go down everyone can’t sell (who will be buying?). So while nice, the rising market is worrisome, so Republicans do not get positive credit for the soaring market since Trump was elected. On the other hand, if stocks do go south, Republicans will get the full blame for the bear market that ensues because of their (stock) investment-stimulating tax cut will have blown up a bigger bubble than existed when Trump was elected.
There is a fundamental asymmetry that exists in this (4T) era. The party in power cannot get full credit for low unemployment because it doesn’t boost wages, nor can they get full credit for the rising stock market because of bubble fears resulting from recent experience in the post-2000 and post-2007 markets. Yet they will get full blame for any bad stuff that happens. Even if the economy stays good, there is plenty of bad stuff that can happen. It is entirely possible for Republicans to lose the House this November despite record-low unemployment and all-time highs in the stock market.
If Republicans are losing even in the face of the most positive fundamentals possible, what happens when Lady Luck turns against them?