While it may be more or less split, my advice is to take a look at the rest of the economic philosophy of the economists who believe each way.
Some economists treat economics as a science. By this, I mean they observe, measure, form hypotheses, test them (as well as we are able, since there aren’t two earths with one for a control), and try to learn from these. If the real-world result of a natural economic experiment is different from what they predicted, they go back and try to see what went wrong, and refine their ideas based on economic reality.
And some economists treat economics as an ideology. They tend to say things like “it is too complex to measure,” or come up with a bunch of ideas about how the world “should” work and adopt those ideas without really testing them, perhaps because they believe testing economic ideas is impossible. When reality doesn’t match the predictions of ideological economists, it doesn’t faze them very much.
From what I have seen, the economists who treat economics as a science favor policies such as Obama has espoused, and the economists who treat economics as an ideology favor the sorts of policies Romney espouses.