New York Times: “As the political scientist Lynn Vavreck… has pointed out, people are generally not angry about the economy, at least by historical standards. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders will certainly keep highlighting what they see as big weaknesses in the economy, and Hillary Clinton will keep talking about how she would improve it. But if most voters are doing sort of O.K., this approach may have a limited impact.”
The evolving condition of the American economy may transform the race for each of the presumptive nominees.
For Trump: “Indeed, the lack of stark economic problems may have allowed Mr. Trump to push unconventional policies. If the economy were repeating the plunge of 2008, fewer voters might be prepared to support a candidate whose policies would disrupt world trade and whose tax cuts would almost certainly lead to a far bigger budget deficit.”
“But think about it: If there is one force that can derail him, or restrain him, it’s the threat that the economy won’t tolerate his more unconventional policies.”
For Clinton: “George H.W. Bush won in 1988 against Michael Dukakis by promising to take the country on much the same course as President Reagan did. But while the economy has achieved steady gains under President Obama, Mrs. Clinton might not gain a big advantage by portraying herself as his economic standard-bearer. The economy just hasn’t been growing fast enough. Economists expect the economy to grow at around 2 percent this year. In the second half of 1988, it grew at nearly double that rate.”