If economic discontent had a face in this election season, it might look something like Kenneth Tyner's. But just because the 30-year-old is suiting up these days for a new job at a Flint, Mich., McDonald's, just because he hasn't held a job longer than seven months in the past four years, doesn't mean Tyner is seething against President Bush.
"He has no responsibility as to how I screw up my life," said Tyner, who, along with his working wife, is trying to raise two children on an annual income somewhere south of $35,000. "I support the president because I like what he's done in Iraq."
For economy watchers, it has been a confounding election season. Economists who have correlated economic statistics and past elections say the president should be waltzing to victory Tuesday, with as much as 57 percent of the national vote. In the hard-hit battleground of the upper Midwest, pollsters say, Democratic challenger Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) should have locked up states such as Michigan by now.
Instead, the outcome is anybody's guess.
"Whenever one uses econometric [statistical] work to make predictions, you have to assume the future is going to be like the past," said Ray C. Fair, an economist at Yale University, whose election model predicts Bush should win 57.48 percent of the two-party vote. "Foreign policy has never trumped economics in the past, but this may be the year."
In Michigan, where layoffs and work furloughs still dominate the headlines, Kerry's lead remains surprisingly precarious, said Ed Sarpolus, an independent pollster. That, he said, is in large part because the Bush campaign -- with the assistance of Kerry -- has been able to keep the focus on Iraq and terrorism. Bush has actually expanded his 2000 margin among white men like Tyner, despite the state's job losses.
"The advantage is still Kerry's," Sarpolus said. "But if it flips and Bush wins, it's because the last message is Iraq and the war on terrorism, and [Michigan voters] didn't hear the counter message from Kerry on health care and jobs."
Beyond Michigan, the razor-thin margins in some of the most fiercely contested states seem to defy those states' economic fates. According to recent Labor Department data, Ohio lagged behind only Michigan in job losses over the past year, shedding 17,900 payroll positions. Yet some polls indicate the presidential contest in the Buckeye State is at a virtual tie.
Minnesota, which Vice President Al Gore won in 2000 by 58,607 votes, appears deadlocked -- despite the 20,000 jobs lost since the president took office. Iowa, which Gore won by a mere 4,144 votes, has since lost 25,900 payroll positions, six times Gore's margin of victory. Yet Bush has led Kerry in several recent Iowa polls.
On the other hand, Florida led all states in job gains over the past 12 months, with 125,500 new positions. Yet it also is too close to call.
