

The economy

Asking the experts

Our admittedly unscientific poll offers cheer to both candidates

See article

Readers' comments



Look I am sorry to offer up such a withering assessment of Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan but clearly neither of these 2 have an independent thought between them. The Republican/Tea Party are beholden to the current status quo of the great and good in America - the Republican policies are merely an extension of the carbon fuel dinosaurs' corporate strategy.

An example? How about "drill baby drill" which the GOP coerced both Senator McCain and Sarah Palin into saying on national TV. This was a message from the oil companies who had enacted total regulatory capture over government bodies in the US and started EXTRACTING oil before the due diligence to DRILL was complete. Nice one Republicans, this worked out well for "ordinary" America.

This example is a synopsis of all that is wrong with Republicans. Senator McCain used to be known as a "maverick" and "disruptive" amongst the inner circle of Republican bigwigs. Why? It seems a life-time of service to his country and enemy incarceration had forced Senator McCain to develop an opinion of his own. The GOP quickly stamped that out. There is no individual Republican, they are all the same malevolent elitist who wishes to maximise short-term profits at the expense of everybody else and the environment.

Having said this, there is no doubt that the Republican plan, such as it is, would create wealth .... just not for anybody new. Plan A seems to be digging a hole between the US and Canada so that all that lovely Canadian black gold can be piped "home". Now the pipeline would be constructed and maintained by Rep. Inc. supporters and the big-wigs would be allowed to transfer their tax burden onto consumers. Nice, so cheap, clean energy, a benefit to everyone? For the rich, by the rich, of the rich.

Something that I have not seen mentioned for MANY years now is a study that was done in the 1990s on Canadian tar sands. The report stated that there is no chance of this resource ever being tapped for 2 reasons:

1) the damage to the environment would be a catastrophic eye-sore
2) the cost to extract the oil would be so prohibitively high that the crisis we were in to make such an enterprise profitable would negate any possible gain from mining this resource

Well, now I am basking in the light of Republican patriotism, their love for their fellow man, by making this nightmare a reality for all of us. Cheers GW, cheers GOP, cheers Mitt!!!


When asked by his 50k a plate dinner donors in Florida about his economic plan, Romney admits on tape that he will not have to do anything, economy will get better by itself. No kidding, just look it up.


"Romney's Plan"

So apparently these economists have had the details shared with them, while they are witheld from the rest of us. Or are they rating Romney's plan as they imagine it would be?

Any economist worth his salt know that Trickle-Down Economics has run its course, doubling down on tax-cuts and deregulation will only exacerbate current economic conditions, not make them better.

kid dingo in reply to Spectacularj1

Exactly what I was thinking.

Romney hasn't released any details, so they can only be working from personal impressions, psychic visions, and palm-reading.

So, no. Not a scientific survey at all, Economist. Not even close.

Just an article on a bunch of opinions and generalities, really.

Curate's Egg

This article confuses me. The presented polling results appear fairly damning for Romney - just look at the bar graphs yourself - and yet the article strikes a tone of evenly-matched contest that simply rings discordant.

The Economist states that a part of the staggeringly higher scores for Obama may "reflect partisan preference: fully 45% of them identified themselves as Democrats, and just 7% as Republicans". So what? Does the Economist actually believe the right-wing nonsense about how academics are censured for their political opinions by 'ivory tower' pinko committees? Why does the Economist (or any other major institutions in America, for that matter) refuse to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the reason why a majority of academics poll Democrat in recent years is because the Republican party has gone intellectually bankrupt?

The Economist also states that "By contrast, the forecasters, a much less partisan crowd, consistently assigned Mr Romney higher scores". Yet I am not given any information on how much higher did Romney poll amongst them and how many of them there were. On the latter, I can only assume that there weren't a lot of 'forecasters' surveyed, since results for independents only still seem to favour Obama for most categories.

There are nine specific issue-related questions, for eight of which Obama beats Romney (some of them by an impossibly large margin, such as immigration and environmental protection). That's pretty serious. And yet the Economist trivializes this result by suggesting that "opinions of Mr Obama became less favourable as questions turned from the general to the specific". Are we reading different polls? There are three issues in which Romney beats, or comes close to, beating Obama - and the Economist tells us that "independents, by a clear margin, preferred Mr Romney’s approach to all these issues". I'd actually agree with such a sentiment, but shouldn't the Economist at least tell us what it means by 'a clear margin'?

I hope I am not overreacting, but the article sounds extremely discordant with the actual numbers that have been presented. So much so, that some of the Republican-leaning commenters have taken offence from the article despite the tone of the article which obviously attempts to soothe Republicans for another anathema from a learned corner of the country.

Swift Jonathan

First, many of the economists associated with NBER are advanced doctoral students or new PhDs. So this subsample differs from the NABE by age as well as party, and the young are more likely to support Obama.

Second, the majority of those who work at NBER are trained and conducting research on public policy issues. They will be assessing the President based on a wide variety of issues -- regarding investment in education, environmental policy, tax policy, health care policy, -- which they have been trained in and studied carefully. The majority in NABE work in forecasting -- which is largely statistical -- and although they have trained in economics, it is likely they have studied macroeconomics and econometrics but not the microeconomic policy fields. It would be more meaningful to assess economists who are expert on particular policies to assess the two candidates policies. Knowing economists, I have no doubt that the Obama supporters are negative on some of his policies and likewise the Romney supporters.

It isn't that this poll is biased that concerns me as much as that it is poorly designed.

Lastly, from my perspective, we know next to nothing about Romney's economic policy prescriptions. We know little about the President's plans for policy as well (elections are not concerned with comparisons of policy positions, it seems), but we have a track record with which to guess at the likely future policies. The more specific either candidate gets, the more there is to criticize, and this biases the poll against Obama.

ntitBrDvRp in reply to Swift Jonathan

Research associates at the NBER are tenured faculty. PhD students are not members, and untenured faculty are Faculty Research Fellows. So it's unlikely there's an age difference.

I agree with your concerns about specific knowledge of policy topics, but this still seems to me to be a much better way to pick survey recipients, than, say, CNN Money's recent "pick 17 arbitrary people with the title 'economist'". Also, I'd still think the people surveyed here have more informed opinions than the general public, even in topics outside their policy specialty.


I am neither a democrat nor a republican. I, in fact, don't even live in the USA. But one thing is evident when reading across papers and mags about the november elections:

democrats pride themselves on being the "academic" ones. Republicans pride themselves on being the "pragmatic" ones. For one, I think both theory and pragmatism are important and shouldn't be excluded one from the other.

on the other hand, It is not so hard to see how despotic many democrat commentators are -moviestars included-, even in their academic-liberal discourse. and it is not so hard to see, either, how republicans really don't mind much researching or cyclical-temporal planning...

the fact remains the same, at least to the world: it doesn't matter who americans choose to lead them -and western society for that matter- through the 2010's. Corporations will pay any tax they are imposed and will learn how to use legal and economical loopholes to manage their ways through it. The real job the president of the USA has is to promote or decide when and where a lesson has to be taught -militarily of course-.

The president of the USA has to be an integral, strong man, who can make moral decisions without trembling to the media and other leaders in the world. The role of the President of the USA should be more global than local.

I believe mr g.w.bush and mr obama are icons of: teaching military lessons for the wrong- personal- reasons, and of pleasant-hand washing- focus group-robot-like-diplomacy- I want to be loved by everyone- instead of doing what must be done in the name of LIBERTY.

All in all, I prefer a tough guy surrounded by knowledgable people to lead the USA, than a talk-show-host-movie-star archetype. I believe the USA and the world are lacking true leadership, at least for the times we are going through right now.

Stale Canole in reply to atasteoflife

You've got it wrong. The Republicans don't take pride in being pragmatic, they take pride in being ideological.

The unfortunate part of ideology is, for the true "believers," any amount of evidence to the contrary doesn't count for much, and therefore doesn't leave much room for compromise.

Michael Dunne in reply to atasteoflife

Real traditional conservatives with strong ties to the entire business community, both medium and small businesses as well as the Fortune 500, are pragmatic.

However, there are TEA party types, almost anarchic libertarians and John Birchers, objectionists and what not that are not pragmatic.

Same may possibly be said for those really just tied up with huge corporations.


If there is one clear outcome from this study it is that the most knowledgeable economists tend to vote democratic. My observation is that most economic experts are swayed by empirical outcomes, unlike most politicians who are not. It is quite likely that reality based economists support the democratic party due to superior outcomes, governing usually in times of improving economic metrics, while the Republican party's economic policies have often resulted in inferior economic performance, the 2007-2008 Great Recession being the latest result.

Clastics in reply to RoyFan51

That is an enormous assertion to make. The logical assertion would be to express the findings are likely a result of poor poll selection. To make a much larger conclusion, as you seem to have made, a more deliberate attempt at sampling must be made with the specific aim of making said conclusion.

boodood in reply to Clastics

the 'poll' was entirely self selected, hence completely worthless, as are any conclusions drawn about economists v romney/obama.

anyone who has passed a beginning stat course should know immediately that this is an article built upon a foundation of melting jello.

the fact that this made it into the august periodical speaks to a lazy, partisan and/or sensationalistic editorial stance.

what CAN be concluded? in academia liberals are either numerically more prevalent or that they feel much more free to self identify as such.

Shehzad M Arifeen in reply to RoyFan51

That is indeed one clear outcome of the study, but the study itself is not scientific in the slightest, and its outcomes, however clear, are therefore meaningless. Your assertions are therefore not as self-evident as you may think. Furthermore, most economists, however 'knowledgeable', are also people, and vote based on a much wider spectrum of issues than the economy alone.


I genuinely believe the Economist concocts these articles to please it's left wing readers and as a foil to generate hundreds of irate comments.
No one with the neurons in their brain connected thinks Obama is more savvy at economic management.

WesternCanuck in reply to jdr-p

It's not about inherent saviness.

It's about recognizing which candidate is forced to flip-flop and then held prisoner to an extremist base... and which candidate is free to follow policy based on logic, reason and mathematics.

hmy_ in reply to jdr-p

No, I actually think most Economists would be more than thrilled with a small government, minimal regulations, free-trade conservative candidate. That's just not who Romney is unfortunately.

Vele in reply to WesternCanuck

Obama is beholden to something even more tyrannical than an extremist base- his own extremist ideology, which prevents him from seeing other perspectives, let alone crafting pragmatic solutions to problems. Hence he is so often forced to charge his own strawmen.

Wellington the third

In summary, Democrats prefer Obama.

Or: In summary, most economists with expressed political preference are Democrats.

Your complaint is akin to the complaint that polls are skewed, because they sample more Democrats - when the case is that a random sample found more Dems than Republicans.

Reality - darn it and its liberal bias!

hmy_ in reply to JCACharles

This happens all the time in American politics, since any poll of the general population will inevitably end up with more Democrats simply because the Democratic party has tens of millions more registered members. It's incredibly irritating to see people complain about "oversampling" when it's just the result of a standard simple random sample.

Of course, those Democrats are largely apathetic idiots who know little and barely go out to vote, so the numerically inferior Republicans successfully win elections year after year.

If voting was tied to a tax break, or mandatory in some form, no Republican would ever win the presidency again nor would the GOP ever hold the majority of either house.


This kind of embarassing to The Economist. They publish this survey knowing it is blatantly stacked with democrats.

So much for editorial integrity.

hmy_ in reply to cCRaupTGdf

What is the alternative? If the majority of respected economists are Democrats, then surely a sample of them would have an overwhelming Democratic majority as well, right?

They could have gone for an equal distribution, but that would no longer be a random sample, which violates the most fundamental rule of statistics.


So the gist seems to be -

Obama polls higher among a group pf economists that overwhelmingly identify as Democrats.

Romney polls higher among a group of economists where political preferences are roughly comparable.

Got it.

In other news, I poll as the handsomest, most brilliant and best man on earth among a group of women consisting of my current girlfriend, two sisters, aunts and Mom.


First and foremost, we should appreciate the fact that every nation deserves the leader it has elected. It will be either for a blessing, or for a curse. As it is written: “The matter is by decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones; to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whosoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.” For your information Google The World Monetary Order to Come.


romenys wife only drives 2 cadillacs srx the small cross over as far as recall from tv. If i was romenys wife i would drive a fleet of full sized cadillacs and a new escalde for shopping trips. Rommeny has mustange and pick up i see it says on line. I am not sure if would go for the cammero or the charger. Also for a truck think would problery go for the ram.

gogogodzilla in reply to newphilo

Funny, you seem to think that bankrupt = out of business.

Romney didn't. Neither did many US airlines.

It'd have done the same thing as the bailout... WITHOUT using taxpayer money. Or telling GM's investors to 'eff' off.


<< “We have to assume Romney is lying about most of his plans,” one Republican academic observed.>>

Assume? What's the alternative explanation? That he's stupid? That he's pig-ignorant?

The better question is why do Republicans feel entitled to lie?

BlueHue in reply to timshel

Sophistry is the occupational disease of lawyers and politicians. However, there is a difference between "spin" and outright lying. As John McCain said to George Bush, "Not everything is politics".

Connect The Dots

Why Mittens is OUT OF TOUCH with the Average American:

At one of his vacation homes, Mitt Romney is completing a $12 million dollar 4 story underground garage built into a hillside with elevator and hot showers. (The latter two features are for the Cars!)

It features an automatic car wash and car rejuvenation spa. Car library with history and picture books for pedantic cars. Several kitchens, built in underground Man Cave with entertainment center. Multiple flat screens entertainment for both humans and cars. (The cars prefer the cable channels tuned to NASCAR Racing or the Speed Channel.)

This garage cost more than 99.999% of American homes.

And 99.999% of American homes DO NOT have a custom elevator for humans, let alone an elevator for automobiles.

Mitt spends crazy money because he may be the richest candidate to ever run for President.

And the Super Rich spend money extremely frivolously. Michael Jackson for instance was addicted to plastic surgery and had a plastic surgeon on call 24/7/365.

...Mitt's interest lies instead with pampering his cars. A butt enhancement implant may do him better.


You wouldn't suppose that partisan preference has anything to do with beliefs about how the economy works would you?

Calivancouver in reply to Alex Kilgour

Is that true? I'd love to see some stats on that. While I would suspect that Tories would garner more of the economist vote than the Republicans, I would also suspect that the Liberals would take a significant share of Economists.

Spectacularj1 in reply to Alex Kilgour

That's because they are, though taking hyperbole and Godwin's Law into account, I usually try to avoid that label. Realistically it's true though considering that fascism is a legalistic mindset, which applies the Republican party of today.

Ross Montgomery

Why are so many academic economists Democrats?

It is bizzare that in the article you somewhat dismiss a lot of the polling figures sighting that they "may in part reflect partisan preference" and yet offer no suggestion why such a large bias in partisan preference may exist amongst academic economists.

I would wager it has a lot more to do with the current Republican party and its problems with fancy book learnin' (as evidenced by Sarah Palin's and Michelle Bachmann's popularity with the Republican base), and the Party's bashing of academics who don't spout the party line at all times, even when it's clearly against actual facts - see most Repub positions on science matters for example - in the last 15 years or so.

There's a lot of truth in the saying that "reality has a liberal bias" (as good an explaination of Fox News and its problems with reality as any I've seen).

Liquidator in reply to Ross Montgomery

I would think that most academic economists in the USA are Democrats or independend because they can't identify themself with the Republican stances on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, gun control etc.



Fareed Zakaria (sp?) got it right: The root cause of why Romney is being dishonest and/or evasive about his plans is not because Romney doesn't have any, it is because the Republican party has become so demented that they demand impossible plans.

If Romney wanted to announce his economic plans, he'd have one of two choices:

1) Present a reasonable, workable plan - which would anger his base.


2) Present a plan that appeases his base - which would give fodder to the Democrats as the plan would be so absurdly unrealistic.

JMckinsey in reply to Puntmeister

The Republicans need a leader to get the two wings in check and present an honest, reasonable alternative to the Democrats. This time around they nominated a follower that panders to their base. Gov. Romney will lose the general election.

supamark in reply to JMckinsey

I think the Republicans need to eject the "religious conservatives" from the party - business (their original core constituency) and religion don't really mix well. The "Southern Strategy" has run its course, and demographics now work against them and the strategy - especially going forward.

Then the religious zealots can form their own party and allow reasonable people to stand for office as Republicans again (and actually have a chance at being nominated).

Puntmeister in reply to JMckinsey

I agree with what you are saying; however, the problem seems that no Republican nominee can win the primaries without pandering to the Republican base.

Before a Republican leader can present an honest, reasonable alternative to the Democrats, the Republican base needs to first become honest and reasonable.

The problem isn't so much in the candidates themselves - its in the ideology of the current Republican base.

Its easy enough to fix individual candidates - its a lot more challenging to fix tens of millions of mis-guided citizens.


Another lame effort by The Economist to justify its desire to endorse Romney in the print edition prior to the General Election.

We'll have to wait and see. But one has to bear in mind The Economist's subscription base and readership, in particular in the US. I would wager this is lightly represented among the 47% whom Romney despises and very heavily represented among George W Bush's "haves and have-mores".

The Economist knows which side its bread is buttered on.

dawn_eck in reply to Murchu_an_tEacnamai

You misunderstand the "47%" as badly as Mr. Romney does. THere are pleny in the 47% - elderly, retired, students, etc, who associate more with the 'haves' than the 'have-nots' and therefore can be considered as potential readership base for The Economist.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Blasphemy laws: Wrong on so many levels
Erasmus 2 hrs 42 mins ago
Keynes and Hayek: Prophets for today
Free exchange 3 hrs 3 mins ago
Democracy in America March 14th, 15:55
Gay rights in Lebanon: Laws of nature
Pomegranate March 14th, 15:43
Airlines and hotels: Room at the top
Gulliver March 14th, 15:42
Daily chart: Banker’s bloat
Graphic detail March 14th, 13:47


Products & events