310WHAT DO
THE FACTS
S AY?65%
60
55
50
45
40
–2 0
Change in Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) before an Election1980
(Carter)2008
(McCain)2016
(Clinton)2012
(Obama)1964
(Johnson)Vote Share for President’s Party vs. Economic Growth
246
1952
(Stevenson)“The
Fundamentals”
and
Presidential
Elections
Political scientists argue that
“the fundamentals” play a key
role in American elections.
For example, the state of the
economy is thought to influence
vote decisions in presidential
elections—a strong economy
benefits incumbent presidents or
their successors. However, most
candidates (and journalists)
argue that the things candidates
say and do during the campaign
determine who wins and who
loses. What do the facts say?
To answer this question,
let’s examine this figure, which
shows the relationship between
presidential election outcomes
(vote share for the incumbent
president or the candidate
from the president’s party)
and economic conditions (the
growth in real personal income
in the year before the election).
The blue line gives the predicted
relationship between economic
conditions and the popular vote,
showing that on average, as
economic conditions improve,
the president or candidate from
the president’s party receives
more votes.- Why do incumbent presidents do better when the economy is strong than
when it is weak? - Candidates who lose, such as Clinton in 2016 or Romney in 2012, are criticized
for running poor campaigns. Look at the data points that describe economic
conditions in these elections and the percentage of the popular vote received
by Obama in 2012 and Clinton in 2016. Given the state of the economy in
these years, is there any evidence that Romney or Clinton did worse than
you would expect? - What signs are there in the chart that other factors besides “the fundamentals”
might influence presidential election outcomes?
Think about it
Chapter 9 | ElectionsFull_10_APT_64431_ch09_296-339.indd 310 16/11/18 1:43 PM