PressEthic

The New York Times ran a story today on how the Republicans have been strangely unsuccessful in their attempts to use the strong economy to win over voters.

But this weird phenomenon is not so bizarre after all if you look at which parts of the economy have fared well (hint, regular folks don't live off the stock market).

Here's the Times' lead:

In many ways, the economy has not looked so good in a long time.

The price of gas at the pump has tumbled since midsummer. Unemployment has fallen to its lowest level in more than five years. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average has finally returned to its glory days of the late 1990’s, setting records almost daily.

Unfortunately, success on Wall Street often means companies have made investors happy by cutting back on pesky costs such as wages, health insurance or pension plans.

In other words, happy investors often mean very unhappy, or at least worried, workers.

By the eighth paragraph, the Times sheds some light is shed on the oddity of disaffected voters:

Disenchantment over the war in Iraq has morphed into disillusionment over the direction of the country, breeding distrust in the administration’s policies, surveys suggest. Moreover, concerned by weak wage growth, costly health care and eroding benefits, many middle-class voters do not see the economy improving for them.

Right. weak wages. expensive health care. eroding benefits. Seems pretty clear why middle class voters aren't too excited about their economic situation.

Oh yeah, and this is the same day that the top headline was "Ford Posts Loss of $5.8 Billion, Worst Since ’92."

That's a big confidence builder if I ever saw one.

The Times' economy article does reference unease in the former strongholds of car manufacturers:

The only place that the economy has emerged as a major campaign theme has been in the aging industrial heartland around the Great Lakes, where the bleak economic prospects are being deployed against incumbents, Republicans and Democrats alike.

But this explanation makes it sound like it is simply a regional problem, rather than something that influences our impressions of the economy nationwide.

Matthew Yglesias notes the "duh" factor on his blog, saying:

Yes, yes, shocking but true -- typical people's perceptions of the economy are driven more by the well-being of typical people than on aggregate macroeconomic indicators. Who'd a thunk it?

People pay attention to bread and butter issues.

Gas prices that are lower than the summer can still be too high. Like if you're working more hours for less money, plus paying for more of your health insurance.

So there's the economy that investors like, and then there are the rest of us.