Electoral Victory and Statistical Defeat? Economics, Politics, and the 2004 Presidential Election

The 2004 election has been interpreted as a resounding victory for conservative values. Was it in fact a mandate? The present analysis examines recent electoral outcomes and the 2004 election with particular reference to economic and political fundamentals. It compares the results of the 2004 election with predictions using voting models. Additionally, it identifies the trends for different socioeconomic groups. It concludes that the Republican incumbent candidate in 2004 did significantly worse than would be predicted based on economic and political variables such as incumbency and economic performance. The 2004 election has been interpreted as a resounding victory for Republicans and conservative values. DespairingDemocrats areweighing their strategies and considering whether to redesign themselves after the victors. Shortly after the election, President GeorgeW. Bush declared his mandate, “[T]here is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view, and that’s what I intend to tell theCongress. . . . I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.” Was it in fact a mandate? Election results are deceptive because of their winner-takeall nature. Close margins in elections get magnified into alleged mandates and sweeping judgements. What in fact was the voters’ verdict in the 2004 elections? How well did 1 A preliminary version of this study appeared in William Nordhaus, “The Profile of An Election, 2004: Outcomes and Fundamentals,” The Economists’ Voice 2(2), 2005, Article 3. The author is grateful to Ray Fair, the editors, and two referees for helpful comments. 2 Press conference,November 4, 2004, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/ 11/20041104-5.html. Supplementary electronic data for this article is available at MS submitted 1 August 2005; final version received 3 March 2006 ISSN 1554-0626; DOI 10.561/100.00000014 © 2006 W. Nordhaus