Interesting analysis.
Here is the link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-23-bush-kerry-cover_x.htmTime-tested formulas suggest both Bush and Kerry will win on Nov. 2
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The winner of this year's presidential election is already obvious.
Former Republican national chairman Frank Fahrenkopf Jr. calls the Bush-Kerry race "the most confusing election of any I've ever seen."
AP/Getty Images
It's Republican George W. Bush.
Unless it's Democrat John Kerry.
Of six measurements for predicting the outcome of presidential contests, all with excellent track records, each signals a clear outcome in November. The problem is, they're pointing in different directions.
A formula by a Yale University economist that has correctly predicted five of the last six elections shows President Bush winning in the biggest landslide since Ronald Reagan's 49-state victory in 1984. It says Bush is a shoo-in.
But Bush's job-approval rating has slid below 50%; not since Harry Truman in 1948 has a president in that territory won the election. By this standard, Bush is guaranteed to lose.
The rally-round-the-flag reaction to terrorism, the politics of key states and other factors carry such conflicting clues that this election is impossible to predict. Analysts say the crystal balls have been clouded by an evenly divided and polarized electorate, the impact of the war in Iraq and the public's pessimism despite an improving economy.
The result: Both campaigns have ammunition to argue that victory is a sure thing and their opponent is doomed.
"Something new may be going on that means the (old) equation is not that good any more," says Ray Fair, the Yale economist who has been tinkering for a quarter-century on a formula to predict the vote.
Former Republican national chairman Frank Fahrenkopf Jr. calls it "the most confusing election of any I've ever seen."
A look at the conflicting clues:
1. Is it the economy? The smart answer is yes — Advantage: Bush
Presidential elections, especially when an incumbent president is running, typically turn on pocketbook issues. In prosperous times, the president wins. In hard times, he loses.
ECONOMY-SIZE PREDICTIONS
Yale University economist Ray Fair has developed a model that uses economic statistics alone to predict presidential election outcomes. It has been accurate in five of the last six elections.
Year
Incumbent party candidate
Predicted vote share{+1}
Actual vote share{+1}
Did the predicted winner actually win?
1980 Jimmy Carter 45.7% 44.7% Yes
1984 Ronald Reagan 62.0% 59.2% Yes
1988 George Bush 51.3% 53.9% Yes
1992 George Bush 51.7% 46.5% No
1996 Bill Clinton 53.7% 54.7% Yes
2000 Al Gore 48.9% 50.3% Yes
1 — percentage of the two-party vote; minor-party candidates not included.
Source: USA TODAY research
Economist Ray Fair's formula is based on that assumption. It uses the nation's growth rate, inflation rate and an economic "good news" calculation to predict what share of the two-party vote the incumbent party will receive. In 18 of the past 22 elections, it predicts the winner.
The formula now forecasts Bush will get more than 58% of the vote this fall, close to the 59% tidal wave that re-elected Ronald Reagan. The Bush campaign sent reporters a memo Tuesday touting the economy as "remarkably similar" to the one Bill Clinton enjoyed in 1996.
But Fair, who also has devised formulas to predict marathon times and the quality of French wine, says it could be wrong this time.
One reason is that foreign policy, from the Sept. 11 attacks to the war in Iraq, may be playing a bigger role than usual.
Another is a disconnect between economists' optimism — over the past three quarters, growth has been the strongest in 20 years — and voters' views that they're still struggling.
Fair believes that a similar disconnect was the culprit the last time his formula erred. In 1992, it predicted that Bush's father would win re-election. He didn't.
2. Low approval usually means removal — Advantage: Kerry
The job-approval rating is the thermometer that pollsters use to take a president's political temperature. Until the final weeks, a president's approval rating has been a more reliable indicator of whether he's going to win than the polling question that gets all the attention: the head-to-head matchup against his opponent.
PERFORMANCE INCENTIVES
In the last half-century, incumbent presidents with job-approval ratings of 50% or higher in May of the election year ended up winning. Those with approval ratings below 50% lost.
Year
President seeking re-election
Job approval in May of election year
Approval rating over 50%?
Did he win?
1956 Dwight Eisenhower 69% Yes Yes
1964 Lyndon Johnson 75% Yes Yes
1972 Richard Nixon 62% Yes Yes
1976 Gerald Ford 47% No No
1980 Jimmy Carter 43% No No
1984 Ronald Reagan 52% Yes Yes
1992 George Bush 40% No No
1996 Bill Clinton 55% Yes Yes
Source: Gallup Poll
For an incumbent, 50% is considered the dividing line between safe and vulnerable. If his job approval falls below that level, voters are ready to fire him. The issue then becomes whether they are ready to hire the challenger.
"When an incumbent is running for re-election, he's basically asking the voters to approve of the way he's done the first term so he gets a second," says Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll. "It's similar to a CEO. The board continues to renew his contract as long as he's doing well."
The five incumbents since Dwight Eisenhower who won in November had approval ratings that were consistently above 50% by February of the election year. The three who lost had ratings consistently below 50% by March.
That's where Bush finds himself these days — a point the Kerry campaign underscored in a memo with charts sent to reporters late Tuesday that declared Bush's job approval "lower than 'every' incumbent who won re-election."
"He doesn't fit as negative a trajectory as his father or Carter, but neither is he as positive as any of the winners," Newport says of Bush. His rating is closest to Gerald Ford's in 1976. Ford had an approval rating of 47% at this point.
Bush's approval rating in the latest USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll: 47%.
3. In times of war, commander in chief gets sharp salute — Advantage: Bush
When Franklin Roosevelt ran for an unprecedented fourth term in 1944, the Democrats unleashed a powerful slogan: "Don't change horses in midstream." World War II was raging. Despite concerns about the strength of FDR's health and the length of his tenure, voters agreed. He easily won a fourth term.
RALLYING 'ROUND THE FLAG-BEARER
Five presidents have run for re-election during major wars; all won. Note that two presidents chose not to run during wartime: Harry Truman in 1952 (Korean War) and Lyndon Johnson in 1964 (Vietnam).
Year President War Did he win re-election?
1812 James Madison War of 1812 Yes
1864 Abraham Lincoln Civil War Yes
1900 William McKinley Philippine War Yes
1944 Franklin Roosevelt World War II Yes
1972 Richard Nixon Vietnam Yes
Source: USA TODAY research
All five presidents who have run for re-election during major wars have won — from James Madison during the War of 1812 to Richard Nixon during Vietnam. (Two wartime presidents, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, chose not to run for another term in part because of public opposition to the wars.)
"Part of it is a rally-'round-the-flag phenomenon, which translates to rally-'round-the-president," says Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist and national security analyst. "Part of it is a desire not to reward the enemy by tossing out his enemy, which is the president." He says controversy over Iraq may be "attenuating" this advantage for Bush, though.
Still, security issues have made some voters reluctant to replace the commander in chief. Democratic pollster Celinda Lake says that's particularly true among middle-class suburban women who are prime targets for Kerry.
"People are risk-averse in wartime," she says.
