Washington ? The markets are down. Housing starts are down. Household disposable income is down. The Democrats’ prospects in November are down.

On the surface, that doesn’t make sense. The common wisdom itself a contradiction in terms suggests that the Republicans, who hold the White House and the House and are a single seat away from controlling the Senate, would be punished in a period of economic distress. The Democrats certainly feel that way. You can hear their plaints and complaints everywhere: If only we could change the subject from Iraq to the economy, we could change control of the House.

They haven’t been able to do the one and may not be able to accomplish the other. This week, for example, the congressional leadership was embroiled in negotiations on language for this month’s vote on military action in Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld criticized anti-aircraft fire from Iraq. Diplomats fiddled with United Nations resolutions designed to ease the work of weapons inspectors in Iraq. In the summer, when the markets took their first serious stumble of the year, the talk was the economy. In the fall, when markets plunged again, the talk was Iraq.

The Democrats’ frustration is palpable. Their argument goes this way: An election focused on how poorly the economy is faring is an election that is focused on the Republicans’ greatest vulnerability. Last week, in his attack charging the president with politicizing foreign policy, Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle of South Dakota inadvertently revealed much with the way he worded his own statement of resolve: “Over the course of the last several weeks, as we have debated Social Security, the issue of war in Iraq has become more and more prominent …”

Indeed, the Democrats have been trying to get back to talking about Social Security for the past month. They’ve begun to run ads on Social Security in a few states Minnesota, where the incumbent Democrat, Sen. Paul Wellstone, is facing a very tough challenge from former St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman, and North Carolina, where former Red Cross president Elizabeth H. Dole holds a healthy lead over former White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles.

The strategy worked two decades ago, in 1982, when under House Speaker Thomas P. O’Neill Jr. of Massachusetts, the Democrats capitalized on a weak economy presided over by a popular Republican. That year, the Democrats, who sang the O’Neill variations on the Social Security song in every key from every lectern, picked up 26 seats in the House. This year, eight would be enough.

That’s a tantalizing number, especially since the percentage of Americans who rate the economy as very good or somewhat good has fallen by 7 percentage points since April, according to a survey taken by the Gallup Organization for CNN and USA Today. Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, one of the likely Democratic presidential candidates, says he senses “a huge anxiety” in the country about jobs, retirement security and health-care costs.

He’s almost certainly correct. But even so, public-opinion polls suggest that the Democrats aren’t regarded strongly enough on the economy to provide them with the issue they are searching for against Bush and the Republicans.

To be sure, the public does clearly favor Democrats on the issue of Social Security. But in the greatest irony of this election Social Security would have been a far bigger issue if the economy had remained robust, not dipped into recession.

Then proposals to “privatize” Social Security would have been aired fully. But now that the Dow Jones Industrial Average is hovering at altitudes last seen four years ago if you don’t think that was a long time ago, consider that it was when President Clinton was facing impeachment following the release of the report of independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr hardly anyone is talking seriously about putting stable Social Security money into unstable markets.

Call collect if you find a Republican arguing that he thinks your retirement money should be placed in a stock fund right now.

Then there’s the broader question of the stewardship of the economy. A new poll shows that even in this time of economic dislocation, the public, by a margin of 42 percent to 39 percent, believes the Republicans would do a better job on the economy and that’s a Democratic poll. While that GOP advantage is right at the margin of error, it is a sobering figure for Democrats. And while there could be a Democratic uptick in the next week or so, after the third-quarter 401(k) statements the real October Surprise of 2002 arrive in voters’ mailboxes, the Democrats’ big hope offers them little hope indeed.

That’s one of the reasons the Democrats scrambled so eagerly over the weekend to ease Sen. Robert G. Torricelli of New Jersey out of the way.

With the public smelling ethical problems and with the Republicans smelling victory, even Torricelli knew that he could not remain a candidate.

Democrats hope Torricelli’s withdrawal is a symbol of their rebirth. Republicans believe it is a symbol of the Democrats’ desperation. The Democrats don’t have the luxury of debating the question. The big debate of the fall, the question of whether the United States would attack Iraq, now begins. It will dominate this week and next. That leaves Democrats with less than a month to talk about the economy.

David Shribman is a columnist for The Boston Globe.