UpDate - Vol. 16, No. 7
October 17, 1996
Profs see economy as plus for Pres. Clinton

     A computer-generated model of the upcoming presidential
election- based on current economic indicators such as the
unemployment rate and per-capita income growth- suggests a
landslide victory for President Bill Clinton, two University
economists say.
     Clinton "will clearly grab the lion's share of votes in 36
states, giving him 424 electoral votes," while the Republican
challenger, former Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas, is expected to carry
only eight states and 37 electoral votes, according to economics
professor Burton A. Abrams and James L. Butkiewicz, chairperson
of the Department of Economics.
     Dole should prevail in traditional Republican strongholds
such as Alaska, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and
Wyoming, Butkiewicz says. In the state of Kansas, he adds,
"favorable economic conditions would have tipped the scales
toward Clinton, but Dole will probably win there because it's his
home state." Six other states (Alabama, Indiana, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Texas and Virginia) were classified as "too close
to call," Abrams says.
     Thanks to a reduction in the unemployment rate in key
electoral states, however, Clinton is predicted to win big
nationwide. In seven crucial states-California, Florida,
Illinois, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas-the jobless rate
dropped from an average of 7.8 percent four years ago to 5.6
percent in May 1996, Butkiewicz notes.
     Voters hold U.S. presidents accountable for economic
conditions, "regardless of the true cause(s) of the economic
malaise," Abrams and Butkiewicz reported in the October 1995
issue of the journal, Public Choice. When former President George
Bush campaigned for reelection, for instance, per-capita income
was falling in 16 states, and 11 of those states promptly voted
him out of office. "This year," Abrams explains, "Clinton does
not have to contend with adverse income growth." Average real
income per capita grew 1.75 percent in the past four years in
most states. Butkiewicz and Abrams say their model is more
reliable than voter surveys, which include responses from those
who fail to vote. But, Abrams says, "Our findings don't mean the
long-shot horse can't win. They just mean he'll have to really
capture the imagination of the American public."
     

Integrity sells

     Another University researcher says Dole might be able to
improve his odds by taking a tip from the late Republican Sen.
John Williams of Delaware. Known as an "an arch conservative,"
Williams was also "a remarkably successful vote-getter, even in a
politically moderate state, " says Carol E. Hoffecker, Richards
Professor of History. In fact, she says, Dole knew Sen. Williams
and even wrote letters to him, which are now archived in the
Morris Library.
     Sen. Williams, who served from 1947 until 1970, was only a
lukewarm supporter of civil rights, and he voted against the
Marshall Plan, a successful and largely popular U.S. effort to
rebuild the economies of Western Europe, Hoffecker says. Yet, he
consistently won the hearts of voters by campaigning against
government corruption.
     For example, his investigation of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (now the Internal Revenue Service) led to major reforms
in the American tax system. He always voted in accordance with
his convictions, Hoffecker says, even when it meant battling with
big business and Republican leaders. At one point, she notes,
Sen. Williams even locked horns with the DuPont Co., Delaware's
flagship corporation. Nevertheless, she says, "People worshipped
the man. He was a genuine folk hero. He didn't just talk about
integrity during his reelection campaigns-he was integrity."
     Still, Hoffecker says, Sen. Williams may have earned fewer
votes in a weaker economy. "I think generally speaking, he never
had to run when economic issues were the overwhelming
consideration for voters," she says. "Certainly, economic factors
can have a big impact on an election."

Seven Key    Est. Major-Party  Unemployment  Unemployment
Electoral     Votes for          May 1992       May 1996
States        Clinton

California    60.1 %-60.6 %       8.8 %          7.0 %

Florida       51.4 %-53.9 %       7.7 %          4.9 %

Illinois      60.4 %-63.5 %       7.8 %          5.1 %

New York      60.9 %-62.4 %       8.1 %          6.1 %

Ohio          53.4 %-58.0 %       7.2 %          4.6 %

Pennsylvania  57.3 %-60.0 %       7.9 %          5.9 %

Texas         49.7 %-52.4 %       7.4 %          5.6 %


                                               -Ginger Pinholster