WASHINGTON _ Whether voters believe the economic cure is worse than the disease will do much to shape next year's presidential race.
In one corner, ongoing trade war and a possible recession; in the other, higher taxes and energy bills, and the possible end of employer-based health insurance as we know it.
A model developed by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz, which weighs incumbents' odds of winning the Electoral College based on presidential approval and economic growth, has decent news for President Donald Trump.
Trump's disapproval rating has been roughly 10 points higher than his approval for much of the past year. But consumer spending is robust, inflation remains in check, and the S&P 500 index closed Sept. 20 at about 1% off its July record.
While it's not the sizzling growth Trump promised, the Federal Reserve, Congressional Budget Office and private forecasters see roughly 2% real GDP growth by mid-2020.
If those figures hold, Abramowitz's model spits out 283 electoral votes for Trump _ 13 more than needed. (While off by an average of 26 electoral votes in 11 races since 1948, the model still would have correctly forecast the outcome each time; the incumbent fared better than expected six times and worse in five.)
Economic warning signs cloud the picture for Trump, however.
Tariff-driven uncertainty is restraining business investment, the Saudi supply shock shows the unpredictability of gasoline prices and the New York Fed is predicting a 38% chance of recession within a year. The prospect of slower growth or worse, combined with Trump's dismal job approval, ought to buoy the Democratic field. But the stark divergence in vision offered by the top-tier candidates muddies the outlook.
Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, running third among the Democratic candidates in most polls, wants "fundamental and transformational change." Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, No. 2 in the polls but surging in the political betting markets, talks about a "rigged system" that doesn't work for the 48% of Americans who don't own stocks.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, on the other hand, wants to patch holes in the system, not burn it down _ and he's sitting atop the polls. If the pollsters are more accurate than the oddsmakers, it could be a good sign for Democrats.
Warren, for example, wants to spend $3 trillion to tackle climate change _ that would cost more than Biden's climate and healthcare plans combined _ and the "Medicare for All" proposal she backs could wind up costing 10 times as much. Backers say the taxes required would simply replace the health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses middle class voters already face. But convincing them their costs will go down and they'll get better coverage to boot could be a tough sell.
To get an idea how such proposals could hurt the Democrats next year, look at the home state of one moderate still in the race, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Hillary Clinton's win over Trump there in 2016, by 1.5 points, was the closest for Democrats since native son Walter Mondale barely squeaked by Ronald Reagan in 1984. If not for Clinton's huge margins in and around Minneapolis, Minnesota's 10 electoral votes could easily have gone to a Republican for the first time since 1972.
Minnesota's 8th District, a vast swath of the northeast and historically Democratic territory including Duluth and the Iron Range, saw a 21-point swing toward Republicans in 2016 from four years earlier, when Barack Obama won by 6 points. The 1st District, which blankets southern Minnesota, backed Trump by 15 points after supporting Obama twice. Last year, Republicans flipped those seats in what was otherwise a great midterm cycle for Democrats.
A repeat of that pattern in 2020 could be devastating. "Democrats can't afford to be blown out in districts like the 8th and 1st," says the University of Minnesota Duluth's Cindy Rugeley.
She believes Biden matches up better against Trump in Minnesota than his closest competitor, Warren, who Rugeley says "might be a little bit too much for voters in the more conservative and rural areas."
If Democrats can't hang on to Minnesota, it doesn't bode well for winning back Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, critical swing states that tipped the election for Trump in 2016.
A Warren nomination could face challenges given Trump's natural constituencies in those states. Pennsylvania, for example, is the second-largest natural gas-producing state, and accounts for 6% of U.S. coal production.
Within a decade, however, Warren would require 100% carbon-neutral electricity. And elimination of employer-sponsored health insurance would affect 20 million people in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan alone, or 60% of those states' combined population, according to census data.
Biden would have his own challenges against Trump. But he's unlikely to scare voters the way Warren or Sanders would. And that could be the most telling message of all considering the anxieties Americans face these days.
