For example, the third column of the table shows theestimated difference in the probability that an independent voter approves of thepresident's performance depending on whether she thought the national economy had improvedor deteriorated.
Lackingthese we cannot directly test the hypothesis that Americans today believe that politiciansaffect the bottom line less than Americans of earlier eras believed they did.
A Test of the Polarization Hypothesis
Generally, the tendency among scholars who study economicvoting in the United States has been to assume that responsibility falls more or lessautomatically on the party of the president and therefore is constant from election toelection.
An Interpretation of the 1972 Presidential Election Landslide ..
Won easily by Republican Calvin Coolidge with 65.2% of the two-party vote, the 1924 election poses problems for two-party vote analysis between presidential and Senate outcomes. While it was no 1912 — mercifully for this project, that cycle featuring Republican President William Howard Taft, Democrat Woodrow Wilson, and Bull Moose candidate Teddy Roosevelt predated the 17th Amendment — 1924 saw a major third-party presence in the form of Sen. Robert La Follette Sr., a Republican running as the Progressive Party’s nominee. In many Midwestern and Pacific states, La Follette outperformed Democrat John Davis, though La Follette only carried one, his home state of Wisconsin. The correlation between the two-party Senate and presidential votes that year was a strong .83, but the presence of La Follette makes it less worthwhile to explore further. It is worth noting, though, that the 1924 Kentucky Senate and presidential races were amazingly identical in their two-party vote percentages: Coolidge won the presidential vote with 51.558% and Republican Frederic Sackett won the Senate race with 51.556%. Of the cases looked at in this article, this stands as the most perfectly matched pair of results.
The 2000 U.S. Presidential Election - University of Vermont
What happened? Smith was a different kind of Democratic nominee: As we last week in our piece on religion and politics, Smith was urban in background, a Catholic, and a wet (i.e. opposed to Prohibition). Those three traits didn’t play well in the rural, conservative, and dry-leaning but traditionally Democratic South, leading to Smith’s failure to carry several Southern states that had backed Democrats in presidential contests since Reconstruction and helping ensure an even uglier defeat at the hands of Republican Herbert Hoover. At the same time, however, the Democratic brand remained strong down-ticket in the South as the party easily won all five Senate elections in the old Confederacy in Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia even while Hoover carried all but Mississippi. Overall, Republicans had a banner year in the Senate, winning a net gain of eight seats.
If the 2016 US Presidential electoral college ends up …
Franklin Roosevelt’s election ushered in the New Deal, but for presidential and Senate results, it was a return to the normalcy of the pre-Al Smith era. After the 1928 hiccup, 1932’s correlation was a stronger .78, though still lower than the 1916-1924 period. FDR’s crushing win over Hoover helped Democrats win 11 net Senate seats, but Republican Senate candidates performed well enough (relatively speaking) that they produced the outlier results that helped lead to a lower correlation, as shown in Chart 5 below. The most obvious example of this was in North Dakota, where incumbent Sen. Gerald Nye (R) won reelection with 72.5% even while Roosevelt was romping to 71.3% in the Peace Garden State. This was the third-most divergent result in the 1916-2012 period.