Magazine article American Banker

Slowing Economy Should Worry Clinton

Magazine article American Banker

Slowing Economy Should Worry Clinton

Article excerpt

Economic recessions are rare during presidential election years, but President Clinton ought to be worried anyway.

Business dips have occurred only twice during the 12 postwar presidential election years preceding this one, in 1960 and 1980. Both times, the party in power lost the White House.

True to form, most bank and Wall Street economists do not expect an official recession - defined as at least two straight quarters of shrinkage in gross domestic product - this year either. What they do see is a flat economy, which itself carries high political risks.

"The U.S. economy was not officially in a recession in 1992, but it felt that way to many Americans, which supposedly cost President Bush his bid for reelection," noted Stuart G. Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Bank Corp. George Bush's loss - as well as his election in 1988 - was predicted by James W. Coons, chief economist at Huntington National Bank, Columbus, Ohio, using consumer income growth as the yardstick of the economy's health.

Indeed, no party in power since 1948 has been returned to the White House with a bad economy - real disposable personal income growth of less than 3% in the election year.

Conversely, the incumbent party's candidate has only lost once with a good economy - personal income growth of more than 3%. That was Hubert Humphrey, who lost narrowly to Richard Nixon in 1968 in an election turning on the conduct of the Vietnam War.

To be sure, there have been economic close calls. Presidents Eisenhower and Bush managed to win in 1956 and 1988 with income growth of exactly 3%. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.