An index based on joblessness and consumer spending isn't saying good things about the president's chances of re-election.
By GENE EPSTEIN
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 |
For my first variable, I took the percentage
increase in real consumer spending in the last six months of the year in
which the election was held, compared with the previous year's last six
months. That's a more tangible sign of confidence, in my view, than
surveys of confidence.
For my second variable, I examined the rate of unemployment for
married males over the last six months of each election year. This
provides a more continuous measure of labor's pain over the past
half-century than the overall rate of unemployment, whose demographic
mix has changed over time.
To compute my measure of voters' economic well-being, or VEWB, I
subtracted that bad thing, the married-male unemployment rate, from the
good thing, the rate of increase in real consumer spending, and got a
single number.
In seven of the 13 races, the incumbent won. In six out of those
seven, the VEWB was flat or positive. In one race, the VEWB was slightly
negative, and the incumbent also won (Dwight Eisenhower in '56).
According to the data, then, a
flat-to-positive index is virtually required for an incumbent to win.
Also, no one has ever won with an index as negative as Obama's is now.
But a positive index doesn't guarantee victory. In the six of 13 races
the incumbent lost, the VEWB was negative in three but positive in the
others.
STARTING FROM THE BEGINNING, incumbent
Eisenhower's win in 1956, even with a small negative VEWB, was followed
by V.P. Richard Nixon's loss in 1960 with a much larger negative. Lyndon
Johnson won re-election in '64 with a positive VEWB, followed by V.P.
Hubert Humphrey's loss in 1968 despite an even larger positive.
Incumbent Nixon won in '72, with a positive index, while incumbent
Gerald Ford lost in '76, despite a small positive. Incumbent Jimmy
Carter lost in '80, with a huge negative, while incumbent Ronald Reagan
won in '84, with a flat VEWB.
V.P. George Bush won in '88, with a
positive index, but lost in '92—by then his VEWB had gone
negative—against a challenger who campaigned on the concept that "it's
the economy, stupid." Incumbent Bill Clinton won in 1996, with a
positive index. But V.P. Al Gore lost with a positive index (although he
won the popular vote) to George W. Bush in 2000, who in turn was
re-elected with a flat index in '04.
Last November, Obama's VEWB would have been the second-worst since
1956 (behind only Jimmy Carter's in 1980). Sure, the president's number
could turn at least flat or maybe even positive by November, but that's
quite unlikely. However, as my data show, it isn't always the economy
(stupid) that determines presidential elections. But it sure helps the
incumbent if the economy is healthy when he seeks a second term.
1 comment:
HAPPY "25th" BIRTHDAY SOFIE!!
Enjoy some Grey Goose....!
Lance
Post a Comment