Economic performance and presidential vote for Obama: the underappreciated influence of race

Abstract

National economic conditions have a considerable influence on the outcomes of presidential elections. Studies have consistently found that there is a strong relationship between annual real disposable income and the vote of the president's party. Based on historical economic performance models, the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections went largely the way they was supposed to, with a generic Democrat being expected to win under the country's economic conditions in those years (as a challenger to the party controlling the White House in 2008 and as the incumbent party in 2012). On the face of it, therefore, models that predict incumbent vote share based on the country's economic performance seemed to be as accurate as ever, giving credence to those who argue that economic performance is critical in determining a presidential candidate's success or failure. These traditional economic performance models, however, fail to accurately account for the role of race in the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns. A number of studies have found that Obama lost a sizeable number of potential votes based on his race that he would have won if he were white. In fact, if one looks at national economic conditions and the vote of only whites (as opposed to all voters), 2008 and 2012 are outliers: Obama did significantly worse among white voters than previous economic models would predict. This may simply be a consequence of Obama's candidacy; a number of whites who would normally be willing to vote Democratic for president may not have done so because of Obama's race. But this also suggests that traditional economic performance models may fail to account for the increasing importance of race as the nonwhite share of the electorate grows. As a result, economic performance models may be poorer predictors of presidential vote choice than they have been in the past.