The Myth of Voter/Party Fatigue

[bballrox4717]

In the six months or so since I joined Atlas and frequented the Presidential forums, I've come across several posters who adamantly defend their belief that not only is it incredibly difficult to get elected after a two term president of the same party as the candidate, but that this difficulty is due to the habit of the population to get sick of the party in power in favor of change. This is ignoring the actual reasons why the candidates are losing. For the sake of the argument, I will only use post WWII presidents, from Truman onward.

1952: This one is quite easy. The war in Korea was seen as mismanaged, Communism was effectively used as a wedge issue, and Eisenhower was enormously popular. I doubt anyone could have beaten Eisenhower.

1968: I skipped 1960, but I'm leaving the hardest ones for last. This one is also quite simple: the Vietnam War fractured the Democratic coalition and left Johnson unpopular. Humphrey made rapid gains at the end when the anti-war fraction began to rally around him, but Humphrey never was able to define himself enough to beat Nixon.

1976: Carter lucked out in this election by Ford's debate gaffe, which might have made the difference. The only reason Carter was even competitive was because of Watergate, the Nixon pardon, and his advantage of being a native son of the South, which was trending rapidly towards the Republicans. Even then, those advantages were evaporating and given another 2 weeks Ford would have won due to the coalition that Nixon built.

1988: Bush won the Republicans a third consecutive victory, and convincingly as well.

2008: I skipped 2000 for the same reason as 1960. This is also easy, even though McCain was a strong candidate due to the financial collapse, failure of the Iraq War, and the rising Democratic coalition of women, African-Americans, Hispanics, and younger voters. Palin might have improved McCain's performance in the end, believe it or not, by driving up voter turnout.

So what are the main factors for defeat?

Poor incumbent performance: If the incumbent isn't doing well, then the party's next candidate is going to have to do everything in his power to prove he isn't the incumbent. In modern politics, the president and party sync up pretty well in their platforms (80-90 percent), so this is nearly impossible. As shown in prior examples, it was a primary reason for the doomed campaigns of McCain, Stevenson, Humphrey and Ford.

Fractured and New Coalitions: If your party doesn't agree on it's platform, then it's going to be nearly impossible to beat a party united in opposition. Nixon's victory over Humphrey is the most blatant example of this, as the Vietnam War split Democrats while Nixon focused on building a coalition that included the normally Democratic areas. Similarly, McCain suffered from Obama's new coalition to an extent. Stevenson and Ford suffered from this as well but in a different way: Eisenhower and Carter managed to have crossover appeal and won votes from the other party.

Bad Timing: This mainly hurt McCain more than anyone else due to the world-wide financial crisis, but Ford and Stevenson were also damaged by weakened economies as well.  

So how do you explain the loss of Nixon and Gore? This is complicated and at first glance seems to throw a wrench to my strident opposition to voter fatigue, but there is an explanation. Nixon was still facing the New Deal coalition, which was no longer as fractured as it was in the Truman years. Nixon also did not command the respect of Eisenhower nor had the incumbent's crossover appeal. Eisenhower did not help Nixon much either when he would not give an example of Nixon's leadership in the Eisenhower administration Kennedy was a factor as well; he took full advantage of television in a way Nixon was not prepared for and connected more with the idealism of the time.

People could write books on why Gore lost, but there were a few overriding factors. Though the Lewinsky scandal did not effect Clinton personally, there was strong support for moral leadership in the White House, as seen with the "family values" aspect of Bush's campaign. As such, Gore did not utilize Clinton in the campaign, who was still immensely popular. Gore also did not have the same connection to people as Clinton or Bush did. The Hispanic vote was also higher under Bush than it ever was with any other Republican. These factors actually put Gore far behind at first, but his campaign made it close. Still, there is one major connection between Gore and Nixon's losses.
 
Vice Presidents make poor Presidential candidates: Sure, Bush Sr won, but not a single Vice President had won since the younger Adams did it. Why? Because the vice presidency does not give future candidates the ability to show leadership, and often they are untested in the primary. Bush Sr was tested pretty seriously by Bob Dole, proved himself as a candidate, and had national leadership experience in the CIA. Nixon never had to prove himself against other presidential candidates, and Gore hadn't run in a primary election in 12 years. They were just seen as career politicians ready to take the next promotion. It's not surprising there was confirmation bias in the debates when Nixon seemed swarmy or when Gore continuously sighed. Humphrey's doomed connection to Johnson shouldn't be forgotten either, which caused Humphrey to suffer from his own base of voters. It should also be noted that candidates who show contrast from their predecessors shine: McCain likely did better than other Republican could have done, and Bush had shown contrast as a moderate in prior debates with Reagan.

So what does this mean for 2016 and future elections? Anything. The economy could go back in the gutter and crater his approval ratings. The drone issue or civil liberties could cause fractures in Obama's coalition. However, on the current course, the Republican coalition seems to be fracturing, and the Democrats remain united. The Democrats have a candidate in Hillary who shows contrast with Obama, has shown leadership on her own, and could have crossover appeal, though Hillary could suffer from lack of competition in the primaries. The Republicans have a candidate in Christie who has crossover appeal similar to Carter's election, and a candidate in Martinez who has crossover appeal to women and Hispanics in Obama's coalition. Still, I would not underestimate the Democrats ability to win their third or even fourth consecutive election if they have the right candidate. The demographics favor it, the Democrats are more popular than the split Republicans currently, and the economy looks to be back on the right path.

[Mr. Morden]

Yeah, I wrote about this topic five years ago:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=71757.0

I looked specifically at cases where the incumbent party has been in office for exactly two terms, so 1952 and 1992 wouldn't count, because the incumbent party had been there for more than two terms.

One thing that sticks out is how, of the last six elections in which the incumbent party had been in office for exactly two terms, four of those cases were elections that ended up in nearly a tie (1960, 1968, 1976, and 2000), all ending with the challenger party "winning" (let's not side track this with a discussion of how to count 2000).  In all of those cases, it was close enough that the slightest change in circumstances might have swung the election the other way.  So of the six cases from the last 60 years, we have one that was a clear win for the incumbent party, one a clear win for the challenger party, and four cases where the challenger party won, but for which the outcome was razor thin and it almost went the other way.  I'm sorry, but that's doesn't justify people saying "It's really hard to win more than two terms" in the way that they tend to.

[Mister Mets]

I've been one of the people to note the tendency to kick a party out of the White House after two terms. And I get the counterarguments. The data set is relatively small (eight elections since 1952 in which one party has held the White House for more than two terms). Most voters also don't change their minds from one election to another, so it's misleading to suggest that the population gets sick of the people in power. A strong majority of Bush voters in 2004 backed McCain in 2008, and it's almost certain that a majority of the Obama voters will support the Democratic nominee in 2016.

While there are specific reasons certain candidates lost, it could still be that these reasons were a result of one party being in the White House too long, as incumbents make mistakes and take actions that fracture coalitions.

It's also worth noting that 2000 could have been a bigger win for George W Bush. His campaign took a serious hit from the last-minute revelation that he had been arrested for drunk driving in Maine in 1976. If that cost him 0.5% of the vote, Florida would not have been a national embarrassment, and he would have also carried New Mexico, Wisconsin, Iowa and Oregon.

It is possible that Vice Presidents are poor candidates, although that's difficult to prove if the counterargument is that Vice Presidents run for office at a time the party faces severe headwinds. I have also noticed that people who have been in Washington for a long time (Dole, Kerry, McCain) tend to lose presidential elections, but it could just be that long-time Senators only get the nomination when the party is the underdog.

I still suspect that party fatigue will be a force, although perhaps not the be-all/ end-all. It's also always possible that we're in a period of parity, which will end like all political eras.

I don't think the Democratic coalition will be much stronger in 2016. You could expect lower African-American turnout without the first Black President on the ticket. Nate Silver's demographic calculator doesn't suggest radical changes for some time, although younger voters are unpredictable, and increased Hispanic turnout is always a possibility.

[bballrox4717]

I'm bumping this due to a relevant 538 article: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/the-white-house-is-not-a-metronome/?smid=tw-fivethirtyeight&seid=auto

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[barfbag]

It's the independents who decide elections. After 8 years of one party, they tend to get fussy and want to switch to the other party. It's been going on since WWII and will continue.

[Mister Mets]

Silver's looking at elections from 1868-1952 which is arguably a different era.

Republicans dominated from 1868-1928, winning 13 out of sixteen elections.

Democrats then won five straight elections from 1932-1948.

1952 seemed to kick off a period of relative parity between the parties.

There is another notable trend. Parties do seem to have diminishing returns.

FDR did worse in 1940 than in 1936 and in 1944 than in 1940 (although he still won comfortably.) Then Truman did a bit worse in 1948. And Stevenson obviously did worse in 1950.

Nixon did worse than Ike in 1956.

Humphrey did worse than LBJ in 1964.

Ford did worse than Nixon in 1972.

Papa Bush did worse than Reagan in 1984. And he did worse than that in his second go-around.

[bballrox4717]

It's the independents who decide elections. After 8 years of one party, they tend to get fussy and want to switch to the other party. It's been going on since WWII and will continue.

Not to be inflammatory, but way to just assert and not even attempt to refute the points made in the article with actual data.

If independents decided elections, Romney would have won by the way.

[barfbag]

It's the independents who decide elections. After 8 years of one party, they tend to get fussy and want to switch to the other party. It's been going on since WWII and will continue.

Not to be inflammatory, but way to just assert and not even attempt to refute the points made in the article with actual data.

If independents decided elections, Romney would have won by the way.

Romney won the independent vote? Normally, the candidate who wins independents wins the election. Not much data is needed to see the list of recent presidents we've had. I will spell them out to you for actual data.

1953-1961 Republican 8 years
1961-1969 Democrat 8 years
1969-1977 Republican 8 years
1977-1981 Democrat 4 years *
1981-1993 Republican 12 years *
1993-2001 Democrat 8 years
2001-2009 Republican 8 years
2009-2017 Democrat 8 years

See how it goes back and forth. There's been statistics and data to show this trend is over at different points in the last 60 years and it's pretty much stayed the same patter of 8 years. In 2002, people looked at politics as if the Democrats would lose the next handful of elections.

[stevekamp]

Read Ray C. Fair, Predicting Presidential Elections.  Party efforts beyond two terms get negative 3.30, 4.125, 4.950, 5.775, 6.600 for 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th.  In addition, Amendment XXII deprives the third term party of the 4.00 point incumbent advantage after 1948 -- FDR and Truman had this in 1940, 1944, 1948, but not in

Longest party string was 1860-1884 (R), and this

[stevekamp]

Read Ray C. Fair, Predicting Presidential Elections.  Party efforts beyond two terms get negative 3.30, 4.125, 4.950, 5.775, 6.600 for 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th.  In addition, Amendment XXII deprives the third term party of the 4.00 point incumbent advantage after 1948 -- FDR and Truman had this in 1940, 1944, 1948, but not in 1952.

Longest party string was 1860-1884 (R), and this included the Civil War with the South out (1864), Reconstruction (1868, 1872), the 1876 fiasco, 1880 (closest ever national raw margin -- 0.10 or 9000 votes), with D finally winning in 1884, losing EC but wining PV in 1888, winning both in 1892.

Second longest 1932-1948 D

[barfbag]

Read Ray C. Fair, Predicting Presidential Elections.  Party efforts beyond two terms get negative 3.30, 4.125, 4.950, 5.775, 6.600 for 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th.  In addition, Amendment XXII deprives the third term party of the 4.00 point incumbent advantage after 1948 -- FDR and Truman had this in 1940, 1944, 1948, but not in 1952.

Longest party string was 1860-1884 (R), and this included the Civil War with the South out (1864), Reconstruction (1868, 1872), the 1876 fiasco, 1880 (closest ever national raw margin -- 0.10 or 9000 votes), with D finally winning in 1884, losing EC but wining PV in 1888, winning both in 1892.

Second longest 1932-1948 D

good research and shows it's unlikely for the Democrats to win in 2016

[Franknburger]

One important factor to consider is voter turnover. Over eight years, something like 15% of the original electorate will have died, being (under a population growth scenario) replaced by some 16-18% of new voters. This is enough to potentially erode even the most comfortable margin of the original candidate's party.

Question is - how will this demographic change work out?
Let's look at the new voters first. They should in principle go for "something new/ refreshing", and a younger candidate, Both features do not favour the incumbent party, especially not with the previous vice-president running. The other main party may exploit this with the right candidate & platform - if not, there will be third-party candidates tapping in (1992, 2000), siphoning votes away from both parties, but especially the incumbent one.

The died-away voters side is a bit more difficult. Being older, they should in principle have some preference for the status quo, so them having died away might again hurt the incumbent party. OTOH, as older voters they should also tend to be less 'swingy', meaning they might over proportion have leaned towards the opposition party (i.e. the one in power 16-8 years ago). In short, this part of demographic change might go either way, depending on the specific age structure of each party's supporters.

When applying this approach to 2016, the first thing to conclude is that the GOP will be more suffering from their voters dying away than the Democrats. Secondly, it is also quite likely that the Democrats will have problems to continue their strong showing with young voters. This brings us close to Nate Silver's 50:50.

Essentially, I think that 2016 will again be decided based on issues and platforms. While most people here on the forum seem to be set on Hillary as 2016 Dem candidate, I think she would be a rather stupid choice, leaving a lot of new voters up for grabs to the Republicans or a third party, while the age groups she might swing back from Republicans to Democrats are gradually dying away. I also doubt that the  Republicans will be able to come up with a "new & refreshing" candidate and platform (a candidate maybe, but I am extremely sceptical as concerns the 'platform' part).
A lot of things may change over the next three years, but as per now, I think the most likely 2016 scenario is a narrow Dem win, owed to their superior GOTV and structural electoral college advantage, with strong third-party showing in-between Nader 2000 and Perot 1992.

[Blue3]

It may be worth noting that there are only 8 times (in ALL U.S. History) when a political party has controlled the White House for more than two terms:

1.   THREE TERMS... Washington(2)/Adams 
 
2.   SEVEN TERMS… Jefferson(2)/Madison(2)/Monroe(2)/Adams 
 
3.   THREE TERMS… Jackson(2)/VanBuren 
 
4.   SIX TERMS… Lincoln(2)-Johnson/Grant(2)/Hayes/Garfield 
 
5.   FOUR TERMS… McKinley(2)/Roosevelt/Taft 
 
6.   THREE TERMS… Harding/Coolidge/Hoover 
   
7.   FIVE TERMS… Roosevelt(4)/Truman 
 
8.   THREE TERMS… Reagan(2)/Bush 
   
 

[eric82oslo]

It may be worth noting that there are only 8 times (in ALL U.S. History) when a political party has controlled the White House for more than two terms:

34 terms, isn't that actually a great deal? One would think so when the country has only had 44 presidents.

[cheesepizza]

It may be worth noting that there are only 8 times (in ALL U.S. History) when a political party has controlled the White House for more than two terms:

34 terms, isn't that actually a great deal? One would think so when the country has only had 44 presidents.

Only 17 of those terms are in excess of 2 consecutive terms though.

[eric82oslo]

It may be worth noting that there are only 8 times (in ALL U.S. History) when a political party has controlled the White House for more than two terms:

34 terms, isn't that actually a great deal? One would think so when the country has only had 44 presidents.

Only 17 of those terms are in excess of 2 consecutive terms though.

What does that have to do with anything?? Does that make the numbers less impressive? Absolutely NO.

[barfbag]

It may be worth noting that there are only 8 times (in ALL U.S. History) when a political party has controlled the White House for more than two terms:

34 terms, isn't that actually a great deal? One would think so when the country has only had 44 presidents.

Only 17 of those terms are in excess of 2 consecutive terms though.

What does that have to do with anything?? Does that make the numbers less impressive? Absolutely NO.

It only sheds doubt on a party spending a third consecutive term in the white house.

[hopper]

One important factor to consider is voter turnover. Over eight years, something like 15% of the original electorate will have died, being (under a population growth scenario) replaced by some 16-18% of new voters. This is enough to potentially erode even the most comfortable margin of the original candidate's party.

Question is - how will this demographic change work out?
Let's look at the new voters first. They should in principle go for "something new/ refreshing", and a younger candidate, Both features do not favour the incumbent party, especially not with the previous vice-president running. The other main party may exploit this with the right candidate & platform - if not, there will be third-party candidates tapping in (1992, 2000), siphoning votes away from both parties, but especially the incumbent one.

The died-away voters side is a bit more difficult. Being older, they should in principle have some preference for the status quo, so them having died away might again hurt the incumbent party. OTOH, as older voters they should also tend to be less 'swingy', meaning they might over proportion have leaned towards the opposition party (i.e. the one in power 16-8 years ago). In short, this part of demographic change might go either way, depending on the specific age structure of each party's supporters.

When applying this approach to 2016, the first thing to conclude is that the GOP will be more suffering from their voters dying away than the Democrats. Secondly, it is also quite likely that the Democrats will have problems to continue their strong showing with young voters. This brings us close to Nate Silver's 50:50.

Essentially, I think that 2016 will again be decided based on issues and platforms. While most people here on the forum seem to be set on Hillary as 2016 Dem candidate, I think she would be a rather stupid choice, leaving a lot of new voters up for grabs to the Republicans or a third party, while the age groups she might swing back from Republicans to Democrats are gradually dying away. I also doubt that the  Republicans will be able to come up with a "new & refreshing" candidate and platform (a candidate maybe, but I am extremely sceptical as concerns the 'platform' part).
A lot of things may change over the next three years, but as per now, I think the most likely 2016 scenario is a narrow Dem win, owed to their superior GOTV and structural electoral college advantage, with strong third-party showing in-between Nader 2000 and Perot 1992.

I don't see a third party candidate currently being a big factor in 2016 but who knows. Gary Johnson wasn't a big factor in 2012. There hasn't been a third-party candidate as you highlighted since 2000 that has played a factor in the election outcome.

How would Hillary be a stupid choice for a Dem Candidate in 2016? She would defeat any Republican candidate except she would have a tough time with Chris Christie I do think.