Think the Economy Can Save Democrats? It Won’t

The economy might play a role in presidential politics, but its impact is near nil in the midterms.

Unemployed Americans line up as they wait to gain entry to meet prospective employers a career fair.
National Journal
Alex Roarty
July 13, 2014, 4:25 p.m.

This month’s sur­pris­ingly strong jobs re­port eli­cited fresh op­tim­ism that at long last, the eco­nomy was poised to re­cov­er its full strength. And in Wash­ing­ton, nat­ur­ally, the ques­tion quickly be­came: Would Demo­crat­ic can­did­ates re­ceive an un­ex­pec­ted boost from a late-in-the-elec­tion-cycle eco­nom­ic surge?

The short an­swer? Don’t count on it. Even if job gains do spike — and there’s plenty of re­luct­ance to pre­dict an ac­cel­er­at­ing re­cov­ery after years of stop-and-start growth — it’s un­likely voters will feel demon­strably bet­ter about the eco­nomy in time for Novem­ber. Ul­ti­mately, how voters feel about the eco­nomy and their own fin­an­cial situ­ation is what mat­ters when they step in the polling booth — not ab­stract eco­nom­ic data.

But there’s an­oth­er, more sur­pris­ing reas­on a late-de­vel­op­ing re­cov­ery wouldn’t help Demo­crats. A pleth­ora of polit­ic­al-sci­ence re­search sug­gests the eco­nomy, ex­cept in ex­treme cir­cum­stances, doesn’t mat­ter much in midterm elec­tions any­way. A boost in growth cer­tainly wouldn’t hurt, but its ef­fect on can­did­a­cies would be in­dir­ect and minor.

In oth­er words, to twist James Carville’s fam­ous line, in this midterm elec­tion, it’s not the eco­nomy, stu­pid.

The no­tion that the state of the eco­nomy would re­gister only a small im­pact over­turns one of the most en­trenched be­liefs about polit­ics in Amer­ica — there’s a reas­on, after all, that Carville’s dictum of the 1992 pres­id­en­tial cam­paign is so in­delible. But re­search shows that while the eco­nomy’s im­pact on pres­id­en­tial elec­tions is un­ques­tion­able, there’s much less evid­ence it is de­term­in­at­ive in off-year races.

One study, from Robert Er­ick­son at the Uni­versity of Hou­s­ton, ex­amined 11 House midterm elec­tions from 1946 to 1986. When con­trolling for the party’s per­form­ance in the pre­vi­ous pres­id­en­tial elec­tion, it found no re­la­tion­ship between per cap­ita in­come growth and a party’s per­form­ance. Oth­er stud­ies, like one con­duc­ted in part by then-State Uni­versity of New York (Stony Brook) pro­fess­or Alan Ab­ramow­itz, have ar­gued the eco­nomy af­fects Novem­ber out­comes only in­so­far as it in­forms voters’ views of pres­id­en­tial pop­ular­ity and each party’s com­pet­ence.

It’s why Bill Clin­ton suffered such deep losses in the 1994 midterms des­pite a re­l­at­ively strong eco­nomy or the de­feats of George W. Bush’s party in 2006. A sound eco­nomy is no guar­an­tee of elect­or­al suc­cess.

“Whatever causes the midterm elect­or­ate to tilt to fa­vor the party out of power, it is not voter wrath over the eco­nomy,” Er­ick­son wrote.

Ex­plan­a­tions for its lack of im­pact vary, but many polit­ic­al sci­ent­ists pin­point the be­lief among voters that Con­gress, un­like the pres­id­ent, doesn’t have much in­flu­ence over the eco­nomy. G. Patrick Lynch of the Liberty For­um found in a 2002 study that eco­nom­ic con­di­tions mattered a great deal to House elec­tions in the late 19th and early 20th cen­tury but de­clined in in­flu­ence once the Fed­er­al Re­serve was cre­ated in 1913 — not co­in­cid­ent­ally, the mo­ment Con­gress’s abil­ity to af­fect the eco­nomy de­clined. “Voter re­sponse to the eco­nomy may have shif­ted slowly from Con­gress to the pres­id­ent dur­ing the 20th cen­tury, as con­gres­sion­al power over the eco­nomy changed,” Lynch wrote.

Cer­tainly, not every ex­pert agrees the eco­nomy is near mean­ing­less in midterm races. Most fore­cast mod­els for this year’s battles in­cor­por­ate eco­nom­ic growth in­to their pre­dic­tions, oth­er stud­ies have reached dif­fer­ent con­clu­sions, and there’s re­cent evid­ence to sug­gest it’s not en­tirely right. Clin­ton re­versed his midterm for­tunes four years later, thanks in large part to ro­bust eco­nom­ic growth, and a dis­astrous eco­nomy surely con­trib­uted to Demo­crats’ massive de­feats four years ago.

But 1998 and 2010 were ex­treme ex­amples, mo­ments in which over­whelm­ing prosper­ity (or calam­ity) over­whelmed all oth­er factors that a voter con­siders. That doesn’t hap­pen most years, and it cer­tainly won’t hap­pen in 2014.

“In ex­treme scen­ari­os, you can say [the eco­nomy] was the de­cis­ive thing,” said Gary Jac­ob­son, a polit­ic­al sci­ence pro­fess­or at the Uni­versity of Cali­for­nia (San Diego), who also con­duc­ted re­search on the eco­nomy and midterm elec­tions. “But in non-ex­treme scen­ari­os, it’s not.”

The view­points of polit­ic­al sci­ent­ists and polit­ic­al con­sult­ants who run cam­paigns of­ten col­lide. But in this case, the two groups see eye-to-eye — if for dif­fer­ent reas­ons.

The eco­nomy has not roared back to life since the Great Re­ces­sion, but it has im­proved stead­ily the last four years. That im­prove­ment, however, has yet to trans­late in­to great­er con­fid­ence: Gal­lup’s weekly Eco­nom­ic Con­fid­ence In­dex has been un­changed since Janu­ary and is still neg­at­ive over­all.

To Demo­crat­ic strategists who have stud­ied voters’ at­ti­tudes about the eco­nomy, the lack of con­fid­ence is partly a func­tion of the al­most psych­ic scar­ring left over from the Great Re­ces­sion. But it’s also an in­dic­a­tion, they say, of the be­lief that whatever gains the eco­nomy is mak­ing aren’t be­ne­fit­ing them per­son­ally.

“It’s un­likely that even if you have sus­tained job growth that you’re go­ing to see a big dif­fer­ence in the per­cep­tion of the eco­nomy,” said Jeff Liszt, a poll­ster who, among oth­er races, is work­ing with Sen. Kay Hagan’s reelec­tion cam­paign in North Car­o­lina. “And people may be­lieve it’s get­ting bet­ter, but not in any way that’s help­ing them. Or even to ex­tent it’s help­ing them, they may feel like they’re get­ting crumbs and oth­ers are get­ting the main be­ne­fit.”

Cam­paign­ing on eco­nom­ic growth is also out of the ques­tion. It was no co­in­cid­ence that since the Ju­ly jobs re­port came out, Demo­crat­ic can­did­ates spent much of their time and en­ergy on is­sues like Su­preme Court’s Bur­well v. Hobby Lobby de­cision over in­sur­ance cov­er­age for con­tra­cep­tion while al­most en­tirely ig­nor­ing the pos­it­ive eco­nom­ic news.

“The eco­nomy is get­ting bet­ter and all the eco­nom­ic data says so — the prob­lem is that pub­lic opin­ion isn’t there,” said one Demo­crat­ic poll­ster, who re­ques­ted an­onym­ity to speak can­didly. “And that’s the data point that mat­ters for Novem­ber. There is no way to claim cred­it for something that the voters don’t be­lieve, so it will be very dif­fi­cult to cam­paign on any pos­it­ive eco­nom­ic news.”

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 5074) }}

What We're Following See More »
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
21 hours ago

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
22 hours ago

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.