Charles Homans: Clint Eastwood's Performance in Tampa
Possible Purple Rhetorical Passages for the Summary Chapters of "Slouching Towards Utopia?: The Economic History of the Extended Twentieth Century": Part XXII

Why Is It So Hard for Charles Cook to Get the Fundamentals Right?

John Sides:

Why Is It So Hard to Get the Fundamentals Right?: Me:

…without any dramatic trend the resulting balance of economic indicators is favorable for Obama, though not strongly so…. [F]orecasts that build in economic indicators—as at 538 and Votamatic—suggest the same.  And yet people still think Obama should be losing because of the economy.  That is simply not the case.

Charlie Cook:

Whether one looks at polling measurements of whether voters think the country is headed in the right direction, at consumer confidence, or at key economic measurements such as growth in gross domestic product, deviations in the unemployment rate, or the change in real personal disposable income, it is puzzling, to say the least, why polls show President Obama and Mitt Romney running neck and neck. Incumbents generally don’t get reelected with numbers like we are seeing today.

And then he’s off into riffs on Romney’s various problems…. Maybe those things are true.  Or maybe the economy just doesn’t predict that Obama should be losing.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: many an  unduly complicated interpretation of an election began with a misreading of the fundamentals.  Fortunately, I don’t need to say much more.  Just read Jon Bernstein, Jamelle Bouie, Matt Dickinson, and especially Sean Trende.