History and the Economy Are Not On John McCain's Side
Weighed down with crippling unemployment figures, which received another hard blow recently with reports U.S. payrolls fell by 62,000 jobs in June—the sixth consecutive month of decline; this on top of skyrocketing gas prices, rising inflation, a housing meltdown, the automobile industry at a 10-year low, Sen. John McCain has been given his marching orders if he expects to defeat Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee in November: which is--convince voters his economic prescriptions for America are more fiscally sound than his inexperienced opponent.
In Denver on Monday, the Arizona senator kicked off one of what is sure to be many speeches and town hall meetings dealing with the economy: specifically-job creation, tax relief and affordable health care.
With a recent CNN poll showing voters less concerned about the war in Iraq compared with a year ago, the economy has quickly become the number one concern of voters, and will likely determine who wins the November election.
Despite Obama still struggling connecting with the middle-class voters, or what were referred to during the primary season as the Dunkin Donut voters (those making $50,000 or less), Hillary Clinton’s rock-solid supporters; if history is any guide, after eight years of George W. Bush's stewardship of a mismanaged economy, McCain’s chances of winning the election are about as likely as the Washington Nationals clinching the National League pennant.
A survey of how presidential contenders fared during a ``political business cycle’’ or economic downturn, shows McCain facing an uphill battle
For example:
• James Campbell, in his book ``The American Campaign: U.S. Presidential Campaigns and the National Vote’’ reports in-party candidates running with economic growth above 1.25 percentage points have won the White House two-thirds of the time, or six out of nine elections; even those that did lose, Campbell writes, such as Richard Nixon in 1960, Hubert Humphrey in 1968, and Gerald Ford in 1976, lost by razor-thin margins.
Dwight Eisenhower, on the other hand, proved to be the lone exception, when he won the 1956 election despite less than 1.25 percent growth
• Campbell went on to document that of the 13 presidential elections between 1946 and 1996, Lyndon Johnson in 1968, Nixon in 1972, and Ronald Reagan in 1984 secured landslide victories, when the GDP grew by more than three percentage points leading up to the election.
• When economic activity declined during the first six months of the year in 1980, many economists attribute Jimmy Carter's loss to the woeful economy.
• Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and George H.W. Bush in 1992 also lost elections, many argue, due to the sluggish growth rates, resulting in the party in power being voted out of the White House.
• Jac Heckelman, Professor of Economics, at Wake Forest University, who has compiled an overview on political business cycles said ``recessions happening during presidential elections are extremely rare’’; but when they have occurred, the party in power suffered on Election Day. In 1960, Nixon (although not the incumbent lost); and in 1980, Carter was turned away by voters. From 1960-2000, according to Professor Heckelman, ``every time the misery index (unemployment plus inflation) fell relative to the previous election year, the incumbent party received more total votes than the other major party.’’ ``When the misery index rose relative to the previous election year, then only with the exception of the 1972 election, Heckelman explained, the incumbent party received fewer total votes than the main opposition party. In 1960, the misery index was exactly the same as in 1956, and the two parties basically split the popular vote (50.1%-49.9%)''
• There’s also been a great deal of anecdotal assumptions put forth, which suggests that President Bill Clinton’s approval rating after the Monica Lewinsky scandal might have been eased, somewhat, by the robust economy, the same way the Iran-Contra scandal during President Reagan’s second term was overlooked, to a large degree, by the strong economy.
• Ray C. Fair, an economist at the International Center for Finance at Yale University has developed a systematic model to predict electoral fortunes based on the economy, which suggests that each one percentage point decline in the growth rate would cost the incumbent party about 0.7 percent of the relative party vote share. Professor Heckleman interprets this analytical model to mean ``if the Republicans gather 50 percent vote share with growth rate of 2 percent, they would have only 49.3 percent with growth rate of one percent.’’
• Voters obviously place a high premium on the candidate’s economic message, so much so that Campbell reports in the``The American Campaign’’ that an analysis of the 1984, 1988, and 1992 National Elections Survey’s reveal that between 80 and 90 percent of voters evaluated the president's overall job performance the same way they evaluated his handling of the economy.
So John McCain is staring history in the face; and the findings are disheartening for the GOP. But the road from here to Election Day is, as always, filled with mines and traps. It would be foolish to brush McCain aside just yet.
It’s time for the seasoned Arizona senator to hunker down and convince voters he won’t hold his opponent’s youth and inexperience against him, but as a one-term senator, Obama is ill-prepared to handle the tough decisions needed to pull the economy out of the doldrums and back to full recovery.
-Bill Lucey
billlucey@bellsouth.net
In Denver on Monday, the Arizona senator kicked off one of what is sure to be many speeches and town hall meetings dealing with the economy: specifically-job creation, tax relief and affordable health care.
With a recent CNN poll showing voters less concerned about the war in Iraq compared with a year ago, the economy has quickly become the number one concern of voters, and will likely determine who wins the November election.
Despite Obama still struggling connecting with the middle-class voters, or what were referred to during the primary season as the Dunkin Donut voters (those making $50,000 or less), Hillary Clinton’s rock-solid supporters; if history is any guide, after eight years of George W. Bush's stewardship of a mismanaged economy, McCain’s chances of winning the election are about as likely as the Washington Nationals clinching the National League pennant.
A survey of how presidential contenders fared during a ``political business cycle’’ or economic downturn, shows McCain facing an uphill battle
For example:
• James Campbell, in his book ``The American Campaign: U.S. Presidential Campaigns and the National Vote’’ reports in-party candidates running with economic growth above 1.25 percentage points have won the White House two-thirds of the time, or six out of nine elections; even those that did lose, Campbell writes, such as Richard Nixon in 1960, Hubert Humphrey in 1968, and Gerald Ford in 1976, lost by razor-thin margins.
Dwight Eisenhower, on the other hand, proved to be the lone exception, when he won the 1956 election despite less than 1.25 percent growth
• Campbell went on to document that of the 13 presidential elections between 1946 and 1996, Lyndon Johnson in 1968, Nixon in 1972, and Ronald Reagan in 1984 secured landslide victories, when the GDP grew by more than three percentage points leading up to the election.
• When economic activity declined during the first six months of the year in 1980, many economists attribute Jimmy Carter's loss to the woeful economy.
• Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and George H.W. Bush in 1992 also lost elections, many argue, due to the sluggish growth rates, resulting in the party in power being voted out of the White House.
• Jac Heckelman, Professor of Economics, at Wake Forest University, who has compiled an overview on political business cycles said ``recessions happening during presidential elections are extremely rare’’; but when they have occurred, the party in power suffered on Election Day. In 1960, Nixon (although not the incumbent lost); and in 1980, Carter was turned away by voters. From 1960-2000, according to Professor Heckelman, ``every time the misery index (unemployment plus inflation) fell relative to the previous election year, the incumbent party received more total votes than the other major party.’’ ``When the misery index rose relative to the previous election year, then only with the exception of the 1972 election, Heckelman explained, the incumbent party received fewer total votes than the main opposition party. In 1960, the misery index was exactly the same as in 1956, and the two parties basically split the popular vote (50.1%-49.9%)''
• There’s also been a great deal of anecdotal assumptions put forth, which suggests that President Bill Clinton’s approval rating after the Monica Lewinsky scandal might have been eased, somewhat, by the robust economy, the same way the Iran-Contra scandal during President Reagan’s second term was overlooked, to a large degree, by the strong economy.
• Ray C. Fair, an economist at the International Center for Finance at Yale University has developed a systematic model to predict electoral fortunes based on the economy, which suggests that each one percentage point decline in the growth rate would cost the incumbent party about 0.7 percent of the relative party vote share. Professor Heckleman interprets this analytical model to mean ``if the Republicans gather 50 percent vote share with growth rate of 2 percent, they would have only 49.3 percent with growth rate of one percent.’’
• Voters obviously place a high premium on the candidate’s economic message, so much so that Campbell reports in the``The American Campaign’’ that an analysis of the 1984, 1988, and 1992 National Elections Survey’s reveal that between 80 and 90 percent of voters evaluated the president's overall job performance the same way they evaluated his handling of the economy.
So John McCain is staring history in the face; and the findings are disheartening for the GOP. But the road from here to Election Day is, as always, filled with mines and traps. It would be foolish to brush McCain aside just yet.
It’s time for the seasoned Arizona senator to hunker down and convince voters he won’t hold his opponent’s youth and inexperience against him, but as a one-term senator, Obama is ill-prepared to handle the tough decisions needed to pull the economy out of the doldrums and back to full recovery.
-Bill Lucey
billlucey@bellsouth.net
Comments