The economy and the reelection

[buritobr]

How the economy has an impact in the election?
The GDP growth in the 4 year term?
The GDP growth in the election year?
The GDP growth in the second half of the term (2 last years)?

Jimmy Carter lost in 1980 and his 4 year average was not very bad, 1977 and 1978 were good years, but there was a recession in 1980. So, maybe, the growth in the 4 years is not the most important.
George Bush lost in 1992, his 4 year average was not very bad, 1992 was good, but there was a recession in 1991, so, the average of 1991 and 1992 was bad.
So, I believe that the growth in the second half of the term has bigger impact on the election result than the growth in the full term or the growth in the last year.
1955/1956, 1963/1964, 1971/1972, 1983/1984 were very good years, and Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon and Reagan won landslides.
2003/2004 and 2011/2012 were not very good and not very bad, and W Bush and Obama won tight elections.

[kcguy]

It seems like I heard this somewhere:

- Elections are only decided on the economy when the economy is bad.  When the economy is good, people have the luxury to care about other issues.
- The most important period is the first half of the election year.  By the summer of the election year, opinions about the state of the economy have already been formed.

[junior chįmp]

Ignore GDP growth. The single most predictive economic indicator is Real Disposable Income in the 3 quarters leading up to the election combined with a penalty for incumbency.(Greater RDI is needed for an incumbent party seeking a 3rd, 4th term, etc... to offset the incumbent penalty)This accounts for 75% of the outcome of American presidential elections. The other 25% is shifting coalitions, demographics, etc....)

You can have a booming economy for the first 3 years but if it goes bad the 4th year....voters dont care and throw you out.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Ignore GDP growth. The single most predictive economic indicator is Real Disposable Income in the 3 quarters leading up to the election combined with a penalty for incumbency.(Greater RDI is needed for an incumbent party seeking a 3rd, 4th term, etc... to offset the incumbent penalty)This accounts for 75% of the outcome of American presidential elections. The other 25% is shifting coalitions, demographics, etc....)

You can have a booming economy for the first 3 years but if it goes bad the 4th year....voters dont care and throw you out.

You have never understood the phrase Correlation does not equal causation.



The vast majority of voters thought the economy was good in 2000 and bad in 2012 and those voters voted for the loser . The winner one due to voters who didn’t vote based on the economy , no matter which stat from a small sample size you try to find to make your point .

[junior chįmp]

Ignore GDP growth. The single most predictive economic indicator is Real Disposable Income in the 3 quarters leading up to the election combined with a penalty for incumbency.(Greater RDI is needed for an incumbent party seeking a 3rd, 4th term, etc... to offset the incumbent penalty)This accounts for 75% of the outcome of American presidential elections. The other 25% is shifting coalitions, demographics, etc....)

You can have a booming economy for the first 3 years but if it goes bad the 4th year....voters dont care and throw you out.

You have never understood the phrase Correlation does not equal causation.



The vast majority of voters thought the economy was good in 2000 and bad in 2012 and those voters voted for the loser . The winner one due to voters who didn’t vote based on the economy , no matter which stat from a small sample size you try to find to make your point .

Every time you reply to my point, i honestly dont even know what it is that your trying to say. Seriously, what is your point here? There is no more accurate heuristic in political science then the correlation (yes correlation and not causation as you claim) between RDI growth and election outcomes. You want me to take your word over decades of peer reviewed studies done by people who have studied the matter and repeatedly replicated the research. (Which in of itself is rare in alot of social sciences)

You have a narrative in your head about how elections work and you dont want it disrupted. You'd rather believe in things that are wrong just so you can claim to have an answer. If your actually interested in educating yourself, then read this article:

One issue often predicts presidential election outcomes

[OSR stands with Israel]

Ignore GDP growth. The single most predictive economic indicator is Real Disposable Income in the 3 quarters leading up to the election combined with a penalty for incumbency.(Greater RDI is needed for an incumbent party seeking a 3rd, 4th term, etc... to offset the incumbent penalty)This accounts for 75% of the outcome of American presidential elections. The other 25% is shifting coalitions, demographics, etc....)

You can have a booming economy for the first 3 years but if it goes bad the 4th year....voters dont care and throw you out.

You have never understood the phrase Correlation does not equal causation.



The vast majority of voters thought the economy was good in 2000 and bad in 2012 and those voters voted for the loser . The winner one due to voters who didn’t vote based on the economy , no matter which stat from a small sample size you try to find to make your point .

Every time you reply to my point, i honestly dont even know what it is that your trying to say. Seriously, what is your point here? There is no more accurate heuristic in political science then the correlation (yes correlation and not causation as you claim) between RDI growth and election outcomes. You want me to take your word over decades of peer reviewed studies done by people who have studied the matter and repeatedly replicated the research. (Which in of itself is rare in alot of social sciences)

You have a narrative in your head about how elections work and you dont want it disrupted. You'd rather believe in things that are wrong just so you can claim to have an answer. If your actually interested in educating yourself, then read this article:

One issue often predicts presidential election outcomes

Lmao the fact is voters in 2012 who voted based on the economy voted for Romney and that is a fact . The voters who voted based on healthcare is why Obama won , just look at the exit poll and do the math lol .


What you don’t get is people made your argument about jobs in 2004 and the unemployment rate in 2012 as no incumbent had been re-elected with those numbers either .

[junior chįmp]

Ignore GDP growth. The single most predictive economic indicator is Real Disposable Income in the 3 quarters leading up to the election combined with a penalty for incumbency.(Greater RDI is needed for an incumbent party seeking a 3rd, 4th term, etc... to offset the incumbent penalty)This accounts for 75% of the outcome of American presidential elections. The other 25% is shifting coalitions, demographics, etc....)

You can have a booming economy for the first 3 years but if it goes bad the 4th year....voters dont care and throw you out.

You have never understood the phrase Correlation does not equal causation.



The vast majority of voters thought the economy was good in 2000 and bad in 2012 and those voters voted for the loser . The winner one due to voters who didn’t vote based on the economy , no matter which stat from a small sample size you try to find to make your point .

Every time you reply to my point, i honestly dont even know what it is that your trying to say. Seriously, what is your point here? There is no more accurate heuristic in political science then the correlation (yes correlation and not causation as you claim) between RDI growth and election outcomes. You want me to take your word over decades of peer reviewed studies done by people who have studied the matter and repeatedly replicated the research. (Which in of itself is rare in alot of social sciences)

You have a narrative in your head about how elections work and you dont want it disrupted. You'd rather believe in things that are wrong just so you can claim to have an answer. If your actually interested in educating yourself, then read this article:

One issue often predicts presidential election outcomes

Lmao the fact is voters in 2012 who voted based on the economy voted for Romney and that is a fact . The voters who voted based on healthcare is why Obama won , just look at the exit poll and do the math lol .


What you don’t get is people made your argument about jobs in 2004 and the unemployment rate in 2012 as no incumbent had been re-elected with those numbers either .

And what does that have to do with anything in this thread? What does a poll citing voters top reasons for why they voted have to do with which economic indicator best predicts election outcomes? The OP is asking a question about GDP growth and election outcomes and your citing exit polls from 2012 about Romney.

[junior chįmp]

What you don’t get is people made your argument about jobs in 2004 and the unemployment rate in 2012 as no incumbent had been re-elected with those numbers either .

Which is exactly my point. Unemployment rates and GDP growth  dont matter as much and Real Dispossble Income is the most accurate economic index to use. Reagan won 49 states with a really high 7.4% unemployment rate....why? Look at the RDI rate in 1984 leading up the election:



Now compare that RDI over his entire 8 year term:



Reagan won his landslide for that reason....not because Mondale was an extremist or because Regana ran really great campaign ads and all that BS. Reagan had the extreme luck of having the disposable income growth explode in an election year. The last 2 presidents who had that luck were Nixon in 72 and LBJ in 64.

[OSR stands with Israel]

What you don’t get is people made your argument about jobs in 2004 and the unemployment rate in 2012 as no incumbent had been re-elected with those numbers either .

Which is exactly my point. Unemployment rates and GDP growth  dont matter as much and Real Dispossble Income is the most accurate economic index to use. Reagan won 49 states with a really high 7.4% unemployment rate....why? Look at the RDI rate in 1984 leading up the election:



Now compare that RDI over his entire 8 year term:



Reagan won his landslide for that reason....not because Mondale was an extremist or because Regana ran really great campaign ads and all that BS. Reagan had the extreme luck of having the disposable income growth explode in an election year. The last 2 presidents who had that luck were Nixon in 72 and LBJ in 64.

Most people thought the economy was great in 84 too, the fact is you can find any numbers to make your point .


I think the best stat is look at what voters said is the reason why they voted and if they said the economy but yet voted for the loser well then economic reasons  isn’t the reason why the winner won .

[buritobr]

It seems like I heard this somewhere:

- Elections are only decided on the economy when the economy is bad.  When the economy is good, people have the luxury to care about other issues.
- The most important period is the first half of the election year.  By the summer of the election year, opinions about the state of the economy have already been formed.

When the economy is good, sometimes the candidate of the party of the president looses tight open seat elections, like 1960, 1968 and 2000. But when the economy is good, the president running for reelection always wins.
The economy was not good in 1932, 1976, 1980 and 1992. But there is an interesting point about the second half of the election year. There was some recovery in 1976 and 1992, but it was too late.

[junior chįmp]

When the economy is good, sometimes the candidate of the party of the president looses tight open seat elections, like 1960, 1968 and 2000. But when the economy is good, the president running for reelection always wins.
The economy was not good in 1932, 1976, 1980 and 1992. But there is an interesting point about the second half of the election year. There was some recovery in 1976 and 1992, but it was too late.

You have to make this distinction when lumping 1960, 1968, and 2000 in the economy was good but incumbent lost category: They are all examples of the same party seeking a third term. There is a very heavy incumbency penalty that overrules a good economy after 2 terms. The economy has to be really good for the same party to win a third term. People tire of the same party running things.

[junior chįmp]

Just to show how important RDI is, I created this chart lining up the elections with RDI Growth:



Again, notice how the landslides of 1964 and 1972 had astronomical RDI growth on par with 1984.

Both 1960 Nixon and 1968 Humphrey were an example of the same party seeking a third term but RDI growth needs to be high to offset incumbency. 1960, 1968, 2000, and 2016 are all examples of the incumbent party seeking a third term and to no surprise....all 4 were some of the closest modern elections.

1976 and 1980 are examples of low to no RDI growth resulting in losses for incumbents.

I don't think Atlas realises nor wants to accept just how much election outcomes are outside of the control of the candidates running. People peg losses on gaffes, badly run campaigns, policies, issues, candidate quality, etc.... when it's literally dumb luck of random economic conditions

[sg0508]

It's about whether or not the "perception" is good.  Usually it takes 1.5-2 years after a recession ends for people to start feeling the recovery. 

By the way, for those saying that the economy was good in 2000, you are incorrect. It was thinning out, particularly starting Q2 that year.  Many blame Rove and Co. for talking it down, but the economy was neutralized.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's about whether or not the "perception" is good.  Usually it takes 1.5-2 years after a recession ends for people to start feeling the recovery. 

By the way, for those saying that the economy was good in 2000, you are incorrect. It was thinning out, particularly starting Q2 that year.  Many blame Rove and Co. for talking it down, but the economy was neutralized.

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/2000PresidentialElection

77% of Americans thought the economy was excellent or good

[Sumner 1868]

It's about whether or not the "perception" is good.  Usually it takes 1.5-2 years after a recession ends for people to start feeling the recovery. 

By the way, for those saying that the economy was good in 2000, you are incorrect. It was thinning out, particularly starting Q2 that year.  Many blame Rove and Co. for talking it down, but the economy was neutralized.

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/2000PresidentialElection

77% of Americans thought the economy was excellent or good

Just shows the public believe the media when they shouldn't. 2000 was the year the dot-coms started crashing.

[sg0508]

George Bush in '92 tried to talk up the economy, which statistically was growing, but people weren't feeling it yet.

By 2012, the economy was growing but a lot of Americans weren't really sure of it.  Thus, Obama had a tough time with his re-election, although he prevailed in the end.