“Are you better off than 4 years ago?”

text from the Washington Post:

“Are you better off” isn’t the right way to evaluate this election, but that doesn’t mean the Obama campaign shouldn’t try to tackle it. After all, the facts are on their side.

In the three months before Obama took office, the economic growth plunged. On Inauguration Day 2009, the economy had lost nearly 4 million jobs and was still hemorraging at an unprecedented rate.

With roughly 150,000 new jobs per month and GDP growth of 1.7 percent, there’s no question that we’re better off today than when Obama took office.

It’s true that current conditions are on the bad side of mediocre. But that’s just a sign of how terrible things were four years ago. Voters aren’t sure that the recovery has been fast enough, and that’s why they are hesitating before granting Obama a second term. But it’s not enough for Romney to tell voters that their disappointment alone should lead them to fire the president. Romney has to show them that he could have made things better — and that he will make things better. Without that, the “are you better off” question may not be enough.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/why-are-you-better-off-is-the-wrong-question-for-2012/2012/09/03/a262cad8-f5d8-11e1-a93b-7185e3f88849_blog.html