An idea credited to Dr. John Petrocik, professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia, Issue Ownership Theory is where candidates for office will talk to voters to a greater extent on those issues for which they have a consistent reputation of performing better (http://darp.lse.ac.uk/...). For example, Democrats tend to discuss issues about the social safety net (Social Security) and education. Republicans will focus on issues related to size of government and taxes. Although not absolute, opinion polling has historically shown support for this theory.
More beyond the hypnotizing orange design.....
Another important aspect of the theory is issue saliency; those issues that are most important to the public at any given time. The above theory only translates to electoral success if the issue resonates, or has saliency, with the public at the time it is presented. Currently, the economy is the issue most important to voters. The problem with this is neither party has ownership over the issue of the economy. It goes back and forth depending on the circumstances of the moment. Another problem is the economy, unless it is doing great in the eyes of the public, is almost always issue number one. IN Gallup's polls over the years, the economy is always important but not the most salient (http://darp.lse.ac.uk/...). In economic good times, such was the case in the Clinton years, education became more salient of an issue. By the elections of 1996, the economy was doing great. President Clinton perhaps could have had better results down the ticket if he would have capitalized on education along with the economy or, even better, linked the two together. Since neither party owns the economy and it is up to the time period to determine who has temporary ownership, which the Democrats did in 1996, he could have strengthened his position on the economy by attaching it to education which may have allowed for greater ownership. Students and schools were performing better throughout the 1990s at a steady rate (http://www.nsf.gov/...).
In addition, studies have shown that framing the argument can help greatly in owning an issue a party does not own (www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/4151362, sorry cannot find a copy of this journal article anywhere easily accessible). This is done by using an issue your party normally has issue ownership of and funneling it through an issue you do not have ownership of or, at least, consistent ownership. There are numerous studies that show education is highly correlated to the economy (http://www.brookings.edu/...); the higher the level of education one attains, the more money they tend to make (thus more tax dollars for the federal government). As mentioned above, Democrats tend to have ownership of education, therefore, it is not hard to connect the two. In the 1996 elections, this is something Clinton could have done that may have increased his gains in the house (only gained eight seats) and prevented losses in the senate (loss of two seats) through a coattail effect. The better he looks, the better his party looks.
President Obama, although he has pounded away at the need for education funding, has not pushed the strong connection between education and the economy, at least, not to the extent that the public has taken notice. With majorities still blaming Bush for the current state of the economy and the people have become impatient on the fact Obama has not waived a magic wand and made it all better, neither party has ownership over it (http://www.politico.com/...). A Gallup poll dealing with the economy have seen results within margin of error which seems to support my speculation of ownership over the economy is in flux (http://www.gallup.com/...). More current polling that has Obama receiving greater negative marks on the economy still shows a tied race overall (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...). Perhaps Mittens has not brought forth anything to give him an advantage over the economy; he has not taken the opportunity as presumptive nominee (and party leader) to own the issue. Therefore, President Obama needs to work on messaging to beat Romney to it.
President Obama needs to use those issues "owned" by his party to convince people his way is best for the economy. He needs to pound away on education, social security, medicare, and infrastructure. These issues are easily tied to economic performance because of their ability to improve spending power of the citizens. Spending power goes up, demand goes up and jobs are created. He needs to do this. By tying these altogether in his speeches, he has the potential to take back the economy and prevent Romney from ownership of it. If Romney can take ownership of the economy, then it will be a tougher race for Obama since it is the most salient issue this time around.