Romney and the Anxious

David Frum remarks on Mitt Romney's win that "Michigan faces some of the worst economic troubles in the nation. Romney addressed those problems in a more sustained and detailed way than his main Republican challengers in the state (Huckabee, McCain)." Ross dubs this "absolutely right." And it sounds right to me. But I'm not sure the exit polls bear it out -- Romney did better among voters who think economic conditions are good than among those who think it's bad.

Similarly, Romney did better among voters making over $50,000 than among voters making less than $50,000. He did better among college educated voters than among those without college education. It's true that he did best among voters who named the economy as the most important issue, but the businessman candidate's main constituency seems to be among affluent business class types who aren't feeling an especially large amount of economic pain. More primaries and more polls should give us more data, but provisionally it's not clear that "economic troubles" are really all that central to his appeal.

Comments

From this and you rprevious link, it looks like McCain got more support among people who don't like the status quo, while Romney got more support among people who are more or less satisfied with the way things are.

Posted by Doug T | January 16, 2008 12:43 PM

Didn't Ron Paul BEAT Rudi Giuliani and Fred Thompson in Michigan??

Posted by Don Williams | January 16, 2008 12:43 PM

In regard to both this and the last exit poll post - My guess is that Romney's strength vs. McCain among Iraq war supporters, affluent voters, and people who think the economy are doing well simply reflects Romney's greater support among Republican partisans vs. McCain's support among independents.

Posted by N | January 16, 2008 12:45 PM

Looks like McCain in Michigan was a stand-in for 'None of the above'. And also, note that Romney is not a remotely plausible candidate for 'change', not even in the more-orthogonal-than-ever-to-reality space-time continuum of his campaign strategy.

Posted by MattF | January 16, 2008 12:45 PM

It's true that he did best among voters who named the economy as the most important issue, but the businessman candidate's main constituency seems to be among affluent business class types who aren't feeling an especially large amount of economic pain.

Possibly, policies don't matter and people vote for candidates who seem similar to themselves along whatever lines they deem relevant.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 16, 2008 12:46 PM

Possibly, policies don't matter and people vote for candidates who seem similar to themselves along whatever lines they deem relevant

Yup. That's also why nobody cares about the distributional aspects of the Fair Tax (see previousl post) - the people voting for Huckabee don't care about the policy, they are voting for the Christian fundamentalist.

Posted by Al | January 16, 2008 12:51 PM

The most interesting dynamic is that Romney did really, really well among people who like Bush, while McCain didn't. If Romney's the nominee, having a constituency of people who are generally satisfied economically and approve of Bush gives him a low natural ceiling.

Posted by SDM | January 16, 2008 12:57 PM

[...] McCain's support among independents. - N (and c.f. SDM)

Nu? Why did in that flinty, independent-minded state of NH did all those independents vote in the GOP side for McCain as opposed to the Dem. side for Obama who's taking the same tack as McCain (as is Huckabee) rhetorically?

What would possess someone who isn't happy with the status quo to vote for someone who is a big enabler of the status quo? I suspect there is indeed an element of low information voting involved here: people believe that "if even the liberal media like McCain, he must be good".

Posted by DAS | January 16, 2008 1:12 PM

Romney did better among voters who think economic conditions are good than among those who think it's bad

Romney talked transparent BS about the economy, McCain told the hard truth.
See here.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 16, 2008 1:12 PM

If Romney's the nominee, having a constituency of people who are generally satisfied economically and approve of Bush gives him a low natural ceiling.

Yes, but for McCain, having a constituency that largely consists of people who don't approve of Bush gives him a low ceiling in the GOP primaries. Hence the continuing clusterfuck in the party's race for the nomination.

Like I said in another thread, Romney's amusingly disingenuous pandering on a bunch of things tends to mask the fact that given a different political environment--one in which an incumbent 8-year GOP administration had solid approval ratings and hadn't been such a disaster in so many areas--Mitt would be a good solid "Republican who can get things done"-type candidate for the general election. But he has almost no conceivable path to winning over people who are already disinclined to vote for a rich corporate white guy Republican in the fall.

On the other hand, that's as good a path as any to winning te GOP nomination. It's certainly a better basis for the nomination than McCain's natural audience of independents, mainstream media pundits, and Republicans who are dissatisfied with Bush. Why does anyone think that combination is going to be enough to win the nomination?

Posted by Haggai | January 16, 2008 1:14 PM

affluent business class types who aren't feeling an especially large amount of economic pain

Who are the business class types? What qualifies one for "an especially large amount of economic pain"? Does one have to face eviction to qualify? I think there are a lot of people in the "business class" who have lost their jobs (or are worried about it).

Posted by zaleriana | January 16, 2008 1:20 PM

Matt,

Don't be confused by the numbers. Look at the verbiage. "Conditions of the Nations economy". People in Michigan are well aware that they are doing far far worse than the national average. They know the the country isn't doing so bad, but the state of Michigan has been in a slump going on its 8th year.

Posted by freddiemac | January 16, 2008 1:31 PM

"Romney addressed those problems in a more sustained and detailed way than his main Republican challengers in the state"

1. McCain and Huckabee essentially have no economic policies that deserve the name. They have semi-random stabs at small parts of an economic policy.
2. Insofar as Romney has an economic policy, it's standard issue corporate stuff. Which is bog standard Republican policy anyway and which has largely failed Michigan for decades.
3. Romney's economic policy is precisely what we would expect from a Bain consultant (or a VC, same difference). If you're already dubious about that type of thinking, you're not going to be too impressed. It's precisely the affluent business class that tends to be impressed by a Bain consultant, and thus is also impressed by Romney.

"I think there are a lot of people in the "business class" who have lost their jobs (or are worried about it)."

Traditionally, the business class has been visualized as two groups: the Chamber of Commerce types and corporate execs (not employees). Are they hurting? The ones involved in real estate are, probably. Outside of those, the remainder are probably adjusted to operating in Michigan's slowly declining economy. Those who weren't, moved long ago by now.

Posted by burritoboy | January 16, 2008 1:59 PM

Romney supporters are educated, make above average income and like Bush. I bet they lied to the pollsters about their thoughts on the state of the economy to make Bush look better.

Posted by Th | January 16, 2008 2:07 PM

Freddimac is right -- you can't draw any conclusions about Michigan voters' economic mood from a poll question that asks about the national economy, since Michiganders are well aware of the fact that Michigan has it much worse than just about every other state right now. In fact, Romney campaigned on the idea that he'd end Michigan's "one-state" recession. So it's quite possible that someone who thinks the national economy is doing well nonetheless voted for Romney because they thought he'd do the best job of fixing the economy.

Posted by vlad | January 16, 2008 2:32 PM

It's also quite possible that affluent Michiganders read Romney's campaign rhetoric as a straightforward promise to pander shamelessly to Michigan's corporate interests.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 16, 2008 2:35 PM

All this seems to point to what may be the big story coming out of Michigan--that establishment Republicans are coalescing behind Romney. That generally means he's going to get the nomination. SC will be an interesting case study in that regard. The Republican primary there was conceived originally as a "firewall," a place where the flames of an insurgent candidacy get blocked by a constituency that typically votes for the establishment candidate. Huck's evangelical support presumably makes SC a wild card, but frankly I wouldn't be surprised [speaking as a native, BTW] if there's a major Mitt surge now that it's starting to become clear what the establishment's marching orders are. Once those people get in lockstep, they REALLY get in lockstep.

Posted by David | January 16, 2008 2:56 PM

"It's true that he did best among voters who named the economy as the most important issue, but the businessman candidate's main constituency seems to be among affluent business class types who aren't feeling an especially large amount of economic pain."

Seems like so far it's the affluent business class types who have been feeling most of the pain: layoffs and cratering stock prices have been centered on financial firms. The blue collar types on the assembly lines at Boeing and John Deere, with their booming exports, are feeling a lot more secure about their jobs and livelihoods I'd think.

Posted by Fred | January 16, 2008 5:13 PM

bb: Traditionally, the business class has been visualized as two groups: the Chamber of Commerce types and corporate execs (not employees).

If the business class is thus visualized, how can it constitute (per MY) "the businessman candidate's main constituency"? You've identified a group that doesn't equal the numbers voting for Ron Paul. Are they Romney's most important constiuency? Less so than most candidates, b/c Mitt doesn't need their money as much.

In any case, the current economic pain and concern for future distress extends to any "business class" person whose business interests or personal finances (i) rely on debt; (ii) rely on foreign investment in the US; or (iii) are tied to the US stock markets--in other words, basically everyone. Sure, Steve Scwartzman isn't especially wound up, but if "business class types" is limited to billionaires, that narrows the constiuency to 9 in Michigan--including a couple who are probably a little worried about the current economy (Bill Pulte of Pulte Homes; Dan Gilbert of Quicken Loans and LeBron's employer; Rich Manoogian of Masco home products). Are any of those guys going to have to sell their NetJet shares? Probably not, but that doesn't mean they aren't feeling (relative) pain, and if they're feeling pain, then so will their highly comped (and upper middle) employees.

Posted by zaleriana | January 16, 2008 5:50 PM