Over at Crooked Timber, Ted Barlow is little bit confused by Ray Fair's election prediction model.
In particular, Ted writes:
1. The model is stunningly simple. There are only two inputs: inflation and two measures of real per capita GDP growth. And the output is not the expected vote percentage of the incumbent, but of the Republican candidate. (There’s also an incumbency variable implicit in the equation he’s posted for the 2004 election.)
2. If I wanted to put this model into words, it would sound something like: “Republican presidential candidates will get more of the vote when real GDP growth is strong and inflation is relatively low.” This has a few counterintuitive implications:Good GDP growth and low inflation hurts Democratic candidates. (Even when they’re the incumbent? I’m not sure which effect is more powerful.)
Unemployment, polls, fundraising, immigration, wars, etc., don’t make much difference in how people vote for President.If you share the reasonable belief that the President doesn’t have much control over GDP or inflation, the model implies that the candidates, even sitting Presidents, can’t do much about the percentage of the vote that they obtain.
Now, “counterintuitive” certainly doesn’t mean “wrong”, but I’d need some convincing.
Ah, no.
If you read the update paper you'll note that the dependent variable is the incumbent parties share of the two-party presidential vote. In 2004 there is a Republican incumbent, so any benefits from the economy's performance redound to Bush. In 2000 they were predicted to benefit Gore, but that didn't work out as planned ...
UPDATE, 3.02PM 18 August: Hello to any Crooked Timber readers, and thanks for the reference, Ted!
Posted by robe0419 at August 18, 2004 11:22 AM | TrackBack