Economic Voting

As the reading in class has shown, it is evident that the economy can play an integral role as a vote motivator within the electorate. However, with the United States economy in what some may call disarray, will the franchise react in the patterns identified by Controversies in Voting Behavior?

HIllary Clinton may be attempting to remind voters, particularly in an attempt to sway independents, that the current Republican President has left the United States economy in a frightening state. With words like recession and economic depression floating around, she quotes "It's easy to give a speech about restoring the middle class, but it is hard to actually do it. ... We've been here before with a president who leaves the economic cupboard bare on Election Day." 

Clinton is calling for a stop to the rhetoric, and an increase in action. Her economic stimulus package is designed to address the "tax cuts for the rich" that Bush has implemented previously, and initiate an economic stimulus package that will result in benefits across the various economic strata of U.S society, focusing more-so on the middle class. However, are Hillary's attempts to remind the electorate that the controlling conservative party have led the U.S into this economic position cries that will fall on deaf ears? Identified in the Controversies of Voting Behavior reading, "Voters find it hard to judge the economic program of a new candidate for the incumbent party" (Niemi 200), considering they have not held the White House previously and don't have a presidential record to be scrutinized, or exploited. According to the reading, what voters will now practice, and which is applicable to the current 2008 election, is prospective economic voting. That is, the current President, George Bush, will be held responsible for the current economic situation, John McCain on the other hand, the probable Republican nominee, will not be punished by voters for his party affiliation with Bush. This has not stopped Clinton, nor has it stopped Obama from attacking Mc Cain's economic stance, which is also a focus on the middle class through extensive tax cuts and eliminating the "wasteful spending" of the government in an attempt to regain the trust of taxpayers. Both Clinton and Obama have attacked McCain's proposal, Clinton stating that "He'd rather ignore the credit crisis and the mortgage crisis -- or blame middle-class families instead of offering solutions on their behalf," and Obama, providing the second blow quoted "John McCain recently announced his own plan, and it amounts to little more than watching this crisis happen. While this is consistent with Sen. McCain's determination to run for George Bush's third term, it won't help families who are suffering, and it won't help lift our economy out of recession" (CNN.com). 

However, do not think that McCain has simply sat back and taken these attacks, he has struck back, almost linking Clinton and Obama's plans to what, according to the Presedential Campaigns readings, could be considered Federalist, " What is not necessary is a multibillion dollar bailout for big banks and speculators, as Sens. Clinton and Obama have proposed. There is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face."

Similar to the election of 1896, economic prosperity is of vital importance during this Presidential race, however, will a change in the current economic situation make it a void issue, similar to the influx of gold made that made the Gold Standard vs Free Silver debate non-contentious in 1896? Or will this be a crucial decided come the Presidential Election later this year?

All quotes found at CNN.com