CAMPAIGN 2004 2004 election: it's still the economy, stupid
Mark S. Mellman
Politicians have long known that economic circumstances help determine electoral outcomes. Some 30 years before the Clinton campaign hung its famous "it's the economy, stupid" war-room sign, Richard Nixon acknowledged that fact of political life.
"I know from bitter experience how in both 1954 and 1958, [economic] slumps contributed to substantial Republican losses," he wrote. "The power of the 'pocketbook' issue was perhaps shown more clearly in 1958 than in any off-year election. On the international front, the [Eisenhower] administration had some of its best years. . Yet the economic dip was obviously uppermost in people's minds when they went to the polls."
Although few would suggest that the economy is the only factor that matters, the notion that incumbent parties are rewarded in good times and punished in bad is the closest thing we have to an iron law of electoral politics.
But pointing to poll answers that show few Americans hold President Bush personally responsible for the recession, Republicans say this president will escape blame for the sorry state of the economy.
Their argument ignores decades of data. Americans vote as if the economy matters. The high correlation between the fortunes of incumbent parties and changes in real disposable income stands, despite the fact that Americans have, for many years, told pollsters that presidents and federal policies do not have much impact in the economy.
In 2000, Republicans argued the only thing holding up Bill Clinton's ratings was the economy. But only 12 percent directly credited Clinton for the boom.
In four presidential election years, The National Election Study asked voters whether the "economic policies of the federal government have made the economy better, worse or haven't they made much difference either way." In 1992, an economic downturn contributed to the defeat of the elder Bush but 52 percent said they absolved the federal government of responsibility. In 1996, when boom times contributed to Bill Clinton's reelection, 60 percent said government policies had not made a difference to the economy.
So poll responses suggesting the president doesn't bear direct responsibility for the economy are largely irrelevant. In these instances, voters behaved as if they did hold the president responsible.
Indeed, even people who absolve the federal government of responsibility for the economy vote as if they do give credit to or cast blame upon the president.
In 1984, Ronald Reagan got a boost from a booming economy. About 48 percent said the economy had gotten better, and 80 percent of these voted for Reagan. Only 21 percent saw a worsening economy, and Walter Mondale garnered 79 percent of their votes.
But what of those who said federal policies had no impact? Well, 68 percent of those who thought the economy was better but gave the president no credit voted for Reagan, while 75 percent of those who thought the economy was worse but said they didn't blame Reagan voted for Mondale. Economic perceptions made much more difference than attributions of responsibility.
But 1992 produced a very different economy and a very different electoral outcome. In all, 72 percent said the economy was worse, and 68 percent of them supported Bill Clinton. Those who claimed they absolved President George H.W. Bush of blame did not behave much differently. In all, 61 percent of those who thought the economy was worse, but not because of Bush, nonetheless voted for Clinton. And 79 percent of those who perceived improvement but did not credit Bush voted for him anyway.
In short, voters hold presidents responsible for the economy, even when they profess not to. If this economy improves, Bush will benefit. But if it does not, poll questions that blame Osama bin Laden for the economy will prove cold comfort to Bush.
Mark S. Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has worked for Democratic candidates and causes since 1982.