Interesting People mailing list archives
It's NOT the economy, stupid
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:03:02 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Arik Hesseldahl <arik () arik org> Date: August 25, 2004 12:53:22 PM EDT To: dave () farber net Subject: It's NOT the economy, stupid Reply-To: arik () arik org Dave,This is a fascinating peice from my colleague Dan Ackman at Forbes.com, that I
thought would be a good submission for IP. Arik ------- U.S. Economy It's Not The Economy, Stupid Dan Ackman and Mark Hazlin, 08.25.04, 6:00 AM ETNEW YORK - That the state of the economy predicts U.S. presidential elections is one of the hoariest pieces of conventional wisdom around. But the evidence is far from clear. While the economy is certainly a factor, financial facts
alone have proved poor predictors of political results. Just how much of an influence does the economy have? To help answer thatquestion, we studied the last 14 presidential elections, focusing on seven economic variables. These economic factors, whether taken individually or together, predicted the winner just 64% of the time. In short, the economy is not a particularly accurate indicator. One reason for this failure is that in most years, the economy is a mixed bag, with some indicators looking up and
others staring down.There is, however, one important exception to this failure of prognosis: when all, or nearly all, the economic planets are in line, the economy predicts the election quite well. That's what happened in 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower easily won re-election over Adlai Stevenson. It happened again in 1964, 1988,
1992 and 1996.In our study, we looked at the economic numbers preceding the 14 elections since World War II, including the latest data for 2004. We considered seven factors: stock market returns for the first six months of the election year and for the first three-and-a-half years of the incumbent's term; gross domestic
product growth for the same two time periods; personal income growth;unemployment; and the overall federal tax burden relative to GDP. We compared each indicator to the average performance for the entire post-war period. Where
the factor was positive (that is, better than average) we considered it predictive of a victory for the incumbent president (or his party if no incumbent was in the race).It turns out that economic factors predicted the winner of the presidential election in just nine of the last 14 contests. That's better than flipping a
coin, but not by much. for the rest see http://forbes.com/home/business/2004/08/25/cx_da_0825economy.html ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- It's NOT the economy, stupid David Farber (Aug 25)