At his blog, University of Arizona political scientist Lane Kenworthy examines an uncannily accurate political forecasting model that uses the growth rate of per capita real disposable income as its key variable. Its only two misses over the past five decades were in 1952 and 1968. Using the most recent income data available, the model shows the GOP getting a slight majority of the two-party vote. And indeed, there are polls showing GOP front-runner John McCain beating both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But Kenworthy tosses in a few of caveats that should definitely make Republicans worried:
Like in 1952 and 1968, the incumbent party is hurt by American casualties in a war it initiated. As a result, its candidate receives less than 50% of the two-party vote despite relatively rapid income growth.... Income growth slows in 2008. That would reduce the predicted vote share of the incumbent-party (Republican) candidate, especially since growth in recent periods is weighted more heavily in the model. ... Another possibility is that the model no longer works well ... 1996 and 2000 are not predicted very well by income growth, and unlike 1952 and 1968 they cannot be explained by war casualties.... Why might the model no longer work well? One hypothesis is that as a society gets richer, pocketbook issues recede in importance for voters. A second consideration is that growth of per capita personal income is no longer a useful indicator of how voters have fared economically. In recent decades the bulk of income gains have gone to a small slice of the population—those at the top of the distribution.
Reader Comments