I recall reading somewhere that Obama was the first incumbent president in (however many years) to win reelection despite a 7% unemployment rate. And as of right now, Trump’s approval ratings are cratering despite the economy being pretty strong and the Dow Jones hitting historic highs.
So evidently, this isn’t like Carter’s stagflation sinking him in 1980, Reagan’s strong economy carrying him to a landslide in 1984 or Bush the Elder’s recession causing him to lose to Clinton - or not even like how the Republicans lost in 2008 in part due to the financial crisis. Rather, we are now in such a partisan era that it’s all about likability or dislikability rather than things such as economics - and an incumbent president can win despite a bad economy, or (potentially) lose a reelection bid despite a strong economy.
I fully expect the U.S. economy to have cratered before the 2020 election, but even if the economy were to defy expectations and still be going strong by November 2020, chances are that Trump or an alternative Republican candidate will have such low favorability ratings that they just can’t/couldn’t win, even if the economy were sizzling with hot growth and prosperity for all. The non-economic issues - scandals, controversial comments, harassment accusations, etc. might just drown out the economy’s ups and downs; we are no longer in Bill Clinton’s “It’s the Economy, Stupid” era.
That was an artifact of the very high unemployment rate early in his presidency. My understanding is that election results are more closely tied to the rate of change than to the current state of the economy. Normally, if unemployment is at 7%, that’s a sign that things have recently gone downhill, which favors the challenger. But the economy was getting better in 2012, which favored the incumbent.
The economy is a major factor in elections only if it’s doing badly. If it’s doing well and/or improving, it usually helps the incumbent party unless the party in power is beset by scandal or involved in an unpopular war.
I agree entirely. The persona of the candidate, the memes on Facebook, the ways in which the individual’s personal character can be spun, mocked, idealized, and parodied…and the candidate’s charisma and ability to entertain the masses as well as push a compelling narrative of how s/he would do things differently, all matter more than the economy. Most Americans don’t understand the economy at all.
This is the God’s honest truth. People WANT and expect a good economy so the credit a president gets for it is muted. When the economy’s bad - high unemployment, job and wealth uncertainty and so forth - the electorate becomes a thing looking for ‘change’ whatever it might be.
Looking at an absolute number rather than a relative one is a fatal flaw for any argument about American politics. The numbers vary too much between eras for them to have long term meaning. The absolute economic numbers in 2016, e.g., were very good in all historic terms, but the surrounding context had changed and that allowed the lack of income growth to prevail over low unemployment numbers.
In addition, in 2012 people were cherrypicking all the myriad of numbers in order to find something, anything they could use against Obama. Your instant response to a claim like that should be: “if that’s all you got, then you’re doomed.”
I don’t understand why you expect the economy to crater before 2020. If it does, then that will dominate the election. If not, then the economy will be mostly irrelevant to the election. But that’s true in almost every election. Why would you hold 2020 up as special?
This and tribalism. If the economy is good, and growing, or bad, and shrinking, you might not realize it if your information is coming from an echo chamber… or at least the echo chamber could “dampen” the effect of the economy on voting.
The same tribalism and echo chamber effect dampens the impact of scandals. They just don’t have the same impact that they used to.
It is too small of a sample, but I’d be interested in seeing future elections where the economy is strong and if it causes friction in the governing party. The strong economy is 2000 and 2016 both featured friction in the Democrats, causing some voters to defect to Nader (2000) and in 2016 to Stein as well as the write ins and blank tops of the ballot.
Historically, a strong economy correlates almost perfectly with re-election to a second term. It’s difficult to identify an incumbent who lost re-election under good economic circumstances. If the economy in 2020 looks like it does today, a Trump loss would be almost unprecedented.
Trump’s personal popularity may be less of a factor than one might think. After all, plenty of the people who voted for him in 2016 did so despite not liking him.
By the way, quick quiz. Do you know which other president managed to eek out a win despite 7.2% unemployment?
[SPOILER] Oh you already have it right here.
This is why I never took those claims that “Obama can’t win a second term with 7.4% because no president had ever won with more than 7.2% unemployment” seriously.[/SPOILER]
A major component of the economy helped get Trump elected. The rust belt went for Trump as they felt Hil’s Democratic party was not looking out for them anymore. It was probably not accurate but those ex union manufactoring folks voted for the candidate that gave them lip service at least even if they knew deep down he was unlikely to help them either.
Sadly the progressive portion of the Dems would probably have won the rust belt. If only HRC had added a progressive to the ticket instead of the invisible man.