The problem is, in a reasonably close election like the last one, there are conflicting signals that make it nearly impossible to draw hard, fast lessons, especially as they relate to issue positions. It is certainly difficult to scry any mandate for President Obama, even (perhaps especially) on these economic issues. Consider the exit polls. On two of the three issues respondents indicated were the most important ones for the election — “Who would better handle the economy?” and “Who would better handle the deficit?” — Mitt Romney actually led Obama by one and two points, respectively.

With 5,100 respondents, these are meaningful distinctions. We can be 95 percent confident (actually, 96 percent confident) that Romney/Ryan really did lead on the deficit question among the general electorate.* The one-point lead on the “economy” question is closer, but even then the distinction is meaningful for our purposes. We’re about 70 percent sure that the difference is “real,” which is too low to get committed to the annals of American Political Science Review, but still meaningful for election postmortems.

This polling occurred in something of a perfect demographic storm for Democrats, with African-American voters turning out well above trend, and with fewer whites voting than in 2004. It is unclear whether this can be replicated in the next few cycles; it will certainly be difficult in the upcoming midterms. Regardless, even in an election dominated by Ron Brownstein’s “coalition of the ascendant,” the GOP candidate did reasonably well on the most important issues.

Indeed, the GOP’s basic positioning on the issues hasn’t deteriorated significantly since the early 2000s.