Elections which weren't about the economy, stupid.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:21:09 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Elections which weren't about the economy, stupid.
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Elections which weren't about the economy, stupid.  (Read 3368 times)
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,625
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 10, 2012, 07:58:55 AM »

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.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2012, 01:07:15 PM »

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. Smiley
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2012, 02:59:27 PM »

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.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2012, 02:59:56 PM »

1796.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2012, 03:34:24 PM »

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
Logged
old timey villain
cope1989
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,741


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2012, 10:17:59 PM »

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. Smiley

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.
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,952


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2012, 06:26:22 PM »

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?
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2012, 07:07:30 PM »

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. 
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,952


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2012, 07:08:50 PM »

Where do people get the idea there was job growth in 2004?
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2012, 07:09:56 PM »

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

Facts. 
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,952


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2012, 07:11:22 PM »


What?
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,625
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2012, 10:10:55 PM »

Looks like 2012 can be added to this, although of course there's still time.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 11, 2012, 06:55:34 PM »



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.
Logged
5280
MagneticFree
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,404
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.97, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 17, 2012, 02:26:00 AM »

I bet if the economy picks up after 2012, 2016 will be social issues once again and probably foreign policies.
Logged
NY Jew
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 538


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2012, 05:04:06 AM »

1864 possibly the least economic election ever
Logged
Tricky Dickie
Rookie
**
Posts: 17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 17, 2012, 02:24:22 PM »

2004 is the main one I can think of.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2012, 04:02:29 PM »

lol
Logged
Comrade Funk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,137
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -5.91

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2012, 07:23:10 PM »

1844 was about Texas/Oregon.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 22, 2012, 08:25:34 PM »

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...
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 22, 2012, 08:28:46 PM »

1820 was particularly remarkable as it came in the wake of the Panic of 1819, yet the incumbent party was reelected almost without opposition
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 22, 2012, 08:52:21 PM »

With only 55 elections before this one, you can only make so many assumptions..
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.042 seconds with 12 queries.