The Economy Drives the US Presidential Elections of My Lifetime
(Or why it takes a rotten economy to put an intellectual liberal in the White House)

The Bad Economy

In fact, I would submit that the economy is the single most important factor in every election in my lifetime. When an incumbent president is running for reelection and the economy is good, the incumbent wins. When an incumbent president is running for reelection and the economy is bad, the incumbent loses. When no incumbent is running and the economy is bad, the party in the White House loses. When no incumbent is running and the economy is good, the decision rests on other factors.

1968 - The economy is strong. No Incumbent. The election is decided on issues other than the economy.

Richard Nixon, out of power since losing to Kennedy in 1960, gains his party's nomination. Hubert Humphrey is the Democratic candidate, winning his party's nomination after the assassination of Robert Kennedy. The economy being strong and no end in sight for its expansion [link] and neither candidate being in a position to take credit like Johnson would have been able to do had he run, the parties focused on other issues. The issues that seemed to carry the day were "Law and Order" - while most of us recall the seminal decisions of the Warren Court, Miranda, Escobedo, Gideon, Mapp and Katz, few of us were alive to recall the increase in crime in the United States during the latter part of Warren's reign as Chief Justice and during the earliest parts of the Burger Court - and, to a lesser extent by election day as a result of the apparently nearing success of peace talks (scuttled by Nixon's convincing the South Vietnamese president from staying away from the talks) making the end seem near, the war in Vietnam.

Nixon ran as a law and order president, citing to the violence in the southeast as a result of school desegregation, Humphrey tried, unsuccessfully, to argue that Nixon's "law and order" position was really just disguised racism. Less disguised racism was displayed by American Independent Party (and formerly unsuccessful Democratic) candidate George Wallace (who had a remarkable epiphany later in life and became a strong advocate of equality, strangely enough). Wallace was never disillusioned into believing he could win, but merely hoped to disrupt the election enough to make an electoral college victory impossible for either of them. He very nearly succeeded.

The gap between Nixon and Humphreys was .7% in the popular vote, though the electoral spread was much larger. Had Humpreys carried California, which he lost by a scant 3.08% or Illinois and Ohio, which he lost by less than 3%, the race would have been decided by the House of Representatives for the first time since 1824.

The ultimate result of 1968's election was that Wallace's run caused a great number of southern Democrats to vote Republican and then to just change their party affiliation.

1972 - The Economy in the US is good (global stagflation trend had begun but hadn't yet hit the US). Incumbent wins by a landslide (60+% popular vote, 500+ electoral college votes).

1976 - The Economy isn't great. Stagflation impacting the globe since 1972 now begins to impact US but the economy. The incumbent loses. (This year is the weakest for my hypothesis. The economy hadn't completely soured and the race was, in all probability, lost because of Ford's buffoonery (says the Soviet Union doesn't control Eastern Europe; falls down a lot; Running mate blames all US wars on Democratic presidents unpreparedness to lead) and Richard Nixon's tomfoolery.

Ford, first unelected US President to not have been elected vice president, loses in a close contest to Jimmy Carter (although Carter is the only Democrat in my lifetime to get more than 50% of the popular vote at 50.1% - I record I expect to be broken tomorrow). Interestingly, one vote was cast in the electoral college for Ronald Reagan.

1980 - Economy bad. Incumbent loses.

Stagflation had set in like a case of drug-resistant gonorrhea. Incumbent loses in a landslide to supply-sider Ronald Reagan, he of the now Obama-vilified trickle down economic policy.

1984 - Stagflation ended in early 1983 and the economy was rebounding. Incumbent wins in a landslide.

1988 - Economy good. No incumbent. Election decided on non-economic basis.

George Walker Bush wins in a relative electoral landslide by promising to make a good economy gooder (or maybe that was just Dana Carvey). This was the election of a thousand points of light and "you, Senator, are no John Kennedy." Fun times. I submit that, if not for a strong economy, the election should have had the opposite result. Dukakis appeared to have 40 IQ points and Lloyd Bentsen on Bush. Most Americans were just not happy with an intellectual who answered a stupid question about a hypothetical vicious crime committed against his wife dispassionately and even less happy with a guy who was opposed to forced recitation of the pledge of allegiance by school kids. John Lovitz said it best during a fake SNL debate against Carvey's Bush prattling on ad nauseum about staying the course and a thousand points of light, "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy." Ultimately, IMO, the race was decided based on values. More Americans, like it or not, prefer a man with a public speaking impediment and conservative values over a professorial liberal who doesn't get pissed off enough when his wife is "fake" raped and who believes that forced patriotism isn't patriotism at all. Either that, or Dukakis just looked so stupid riding around on that tank, people were just laughing to hard at the thought of it and couldn't hear what was being said.

1992 - Economy in the dumper. Incumbent loses. Clinton - with some help from Ross Perot who does better that Wallace popularly, but gets no electoral votes - by remembering "it's the economy, stupid."

1996 - Economy is good. Incumbent wins handily.

2000 - Economy is good. No incumbent. Winner (from the incumbent's party) loses. Loser (from the other party) wins. Go figure. The difference between the candidates' position appears largely to be values with Dubya being the "down to earth, I'd have a beer with that guy" candidate and Gore being painted as an effete, intellectual liberal.

2004 - Economy isn't great, but better considering what it was in 2002 and 2003. Incumbent wins. Dubya gets even more of the popular vote as Jimmy Carter (50.74%); declares a mandate.

2008 - Economy sucks. Incumbent's party set to lose with the candidate from the party not in the White House likely getting even more of the popular vote than Dubya; will likely declare mandate. Interestingly, McCain is projected to get more votes than any other Republican running for president and will still almost certainly lose.

Bottom line, the economy is the single largest factor in who gets elected except when it is bad and then it is the only real factor. Bad economies, in my lifetime, at least, have always resulted in the incumbent or the incumbent's party losing the White House.