Will the economy (stupid) again determine the outcome of a presidential election? Based on two important economic measures that I've examined and their relationship to the presidential races since 1956, Obama supporters have cause to worry.
All but the most recent of those races featured an incumbent, whether it was a sitting president (nine races out of 13) or a vice president seeking to move into the Oval Office (four out of 13). Based on consumer spending and unemployment—the two variables I tracked—Obama probably would have lost had he run for re-election this past November.
The numbers have improved since then, but not enough to tip the odds in the president's favor. (See summary data in the table below.)
Is It the Economy, Stupid?
| Year | Incumbent/VP | VEWB* | Result |
| 1956 | Dwight D. Eisenhower | -0.6 | Won |
| 1960 | Richard Nixon | -2.2 | Lost |
| 1964 | Lyndon B. Johnson | 3.6 | Won |
| 1968 | Hubert Humphrey | 5 | Lost |
| 1972 | Richard Nixon | 4.3 | Won |
| 1976 | Gerald Ford | 1 | Lost |
| 1980 | Jimmy Carter | -4 | Lost |
| 1984 | Ronald Reagan | 0 | Won |
| 1988 | George H. W. Bush | 0.8 | Won |
| 1992 | George H. W. Bush | -1.3 | Lost |
| 1996 | Bill Clinton | 0.5 | Won |
| 2000 | Al Gore | 2.6 | Lost |
| 2004 | George W. Bush | 0 | Won |
| 2011 | Barack Obama | -3.9 |
*Voters' Economic Well-Being = Consumer spending growth minus the jobless rate
No comments:
Post a Comment