Elections which weren't about the economy, stupid.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

What were they?

Ones that come to mind:

2004: Voters minds were on Iraq (and to a lesser extent gay marriage)
2000: Bush won despite the economy booming.
1988: Seemed to be a lot on ideology rather than continuing the good times.
1968: Voters minds were on Vietnam and culture wars.
1952: Voters minds were on Korea.

[Nym90]

1988 is debatable; it's true that a lot of the campaign focus was on rather trivial matters, but Bush still would have been solidly favored based on the economic fundamentals. It's pretty hard to distinguish between a Bush voter voting on the economy and a Bush voter who felt Dukakis represented a threat to the pledge of allegiance.

The other four, however are clear examples of elections that the Democrats would have won if they had been about the economy, but lost because of foreign policy (1952, 1968, 2004) or focus on trivial matters (2000).

So I'd say us Dems are due for an election that we win that we would've lost if it had been about the economy; we haven't had one since 1940.

[phk]

I don't remember things booming that much after mid-2000. Especially considering my dad was in a rush to reduce his exposure to dot-com stocks from April to September of that year.

[Assistant to the Regional Manager Cathcon]

1796.

[IndyTexas]

Elections are never about the economy when the economy is doing well.

See the 1952-1972 elections and 1996 and 2000.

1976 - inflation
1980 - stagflation
1984 - recession
1988 - US agriculture was a disaster in the late '80s, hence Bush's loss of Iowa and Wisconsin
1992 - recession
2004 - tepid job growth
2008 - cluster

[cope1989]

1988 is debatable; it's true that a lot of the campaign focus was on rather trivial matters, but Bush still would have been solidly favored based on the economic fundamentals. It's pretty hard to distinguish between a Bush voter voting on the economy and a Bush voter who felt Dukakis represented a threat to the pledge of allegiance.

The other four, however are clear examples of elections that the Democrats would have won if they had been about the economy, but lost because of foreign policy (1952, 1968, 2004) or focus on trivial matters (2000).

So I'd say us Dems are due for an election that we win that we would've lost if it had been about the economy; we haven't had one since 1940.

It's not that hard. If Joe the Plumber (1980s model) saw his standard of living and wages stagnate in comparison to the very rich, yet he still voted for Bush, then it was probably because Dukakis wanted to use the American flag as toilet paper.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

What elections were about the economy? Apparently, not many. Why did the Republicans keep winning in so many years in which they ruined the economy?

[Mr.Phips]

Elections are never about the economy when the economy is doing well.

See the 1952-1972 elections and 1996 and 2000.

1976 - inflation
1980 - stagflation
1984 - recession
1988 - US agriculture was a disaster in the late '80s, hence Bush's loss of Iowa and Wisconsin
1992 - recession
2004 - tepid job growth
2008 - cluster

There was no recession in 1984.  The economy was booming that year. 

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Where do people get the idea there was job growth in 2004?

[Mr.Phips]

Where do people get the idea there was job growth in 2004?

Facts. 

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Where do people get the idea there was job growth in 2004?

Facts. 

What?

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

Looks like 2012 can be added to this, although of course there's still time.

[J. J.]

It's not that hard. If Joe the Plumber (1980s model) saw his standard of living and wages stagnate in comparison to the very rich, yet he still voted for Bush, then it was probably because Dukakis wanted to use the American flag as toilet paper.

1988 was when we were still in a period of growth.  The market crashed in 1987, but it passed its 1986 high in 1988, and unemployment was dwindling.  You also have to remember that most voters remembered the 1970's.

[5280/East California]

I bet if the economy picks up after 2012, 2016 will be social issues once again and probably foreign policies.

[NY Jew]

1864 possibly the least economic election ever

[Tricky Dickie]

2004 is the main one I can think of.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

lol

[Comrade Funk]

1844 was about Texas/Oregon.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

I still don't know what 2004 was about. The economy was kinda ok, but not great...kinda in a mediocre recovery after a small recession. I am guessing it was the opposition to the Iraq War competing against the opposition to Gay Marriage, where those who screamed loudest won...in Iowa and Ohio....and Bush's moderate stance on immigration probably helped him in New Mexico and Nevada...

[Beet]

1820 was particularly remarkable as it came in the wake of the Panic of 1819, yet the incumbent party was reelected almost without opposition

[InsaneTrollLogic]

With only 55 elections before this one, you can only make so many assumptions..