With a national financial crisis and the ongoing European crisis fresh on the minds of U.S. voters, it’s no wonder that so much of the discourse surrounding presidential candidates this election cycle has focused on the economy. In a Feb. 7 presentation to the Baker Institute Student Forum, Lynn Vavreck, associate professor of political science and communication studies at UCLA, demonstrated how candidates’ campaign messages might affect the link between the state of the economy and election results, as demonstrated by several economic forecasting models.
As she explains in “The Message Matters: The Economy and Presidential Campaigns” (Princeton University Press, 2009), presidential election results almost always come down to the economy. Data suggests a correlation between changes in rates of unemployment and incumbent party vote share, as well as an even stronger correlation between growth — measured in change in gross domestic product (GDP) — and incumbent party vote share. Historically, incumbent-party candidates in growing economies almost always win elections, and challengers in bad economies. Based on the rate of change in GDP between the fourth quarter and the second quarter before an election, the model can predict around 80 percent of elections.
What does this mean for the 2012 presidential election? The job report released this month by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that unemployment is currently at 8.3 percent, a 0.8 percent decrease from last August. Also, GDP increased at an annual rate of 2.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011. Looking at the current numbers, Vavreck’s model predicts President Barack Obama has the economic advantage in the 2012 election and is projected to win, even though growth in the first two years of his presidency was not as strong. Voters like to reward incumbent parties, and particularly incumbents themselves, for an improving economy.
If Vavreck’s economic model is correct, and it really is “the economy, stupid,” as James Carville suggested during President Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, Republican candidates should actually avoid the topic. Current Republican front-runner Mitt Romney has largely focused on his private-sector experience in job creation. While this may set him apart from other Republican nominees, it won’t help him beat Obama. Instead of trying to assert the fact that he has created more jobs than the current president, Romney and the Republicans need a compelling non-economic message to draw attention away from Obama’s economic advantage.
Vavreck suggests that the challenger find a non-economic message that appears inherently in his favor, and that a large majority of Americans value. At the same time, Obama must be on the unpopular side of the issue, without the ability to change sides. She proposes a combination of two winning messages by “economically disadvantaged” candidates: the global war for the future in Kennedy’s New Frontier plus the subtle appeal to race in Nixon’s “Crime and Safety” campaign. With the current increase in immigrants and impact of globalization in the United States, Americans face a changing environment and an uncertain identity. Vavreck believes the candidate can capitalize upon the resulting anxiety and uncertainty through a message focused on American revival, with an implicit nationalist appeal to white voters who harbor suspicions of the country’s changing demographics. This is an issue that plays upon racial resentment and insecurity, and traps Obama on the opposing side.
While this sort of appeal very well could be incredibly successful for a candidate running against Obama, its central motive to prey upon racial prejudice and to divide is hardly without repercussions. It may draw attention away from the president’s economic track record and win the presidency for the opponent, but at what cost? The discourse would divide the nation at a difficult time in our history, with problems, including those economic, that we need to solve together. Instead, we need a more constructive message that presents an appealing vision of an American resurgence and identity, not one that divides.
Melissa Fwu is a Rice University senior studying political science and policy studies. She also serves as an events chair for the Baker Institute Student Forum.