James Carville, Bill Clinton's chief strategist during the 1992 campaign, and Lynn Vavrik, UCLA political science expert, dive into the impact of the slogan 'It's the economy, stupid.' They explore how economic issues swayed voter preferences, contrasting 1992 with today's landscape of rising prices and job growth. The duo reflects on the cultural legacy of the phrase and its significance in electoral success. They also tackle shifting voter dynamics, questioning the role of economy amid increasing partisanship as we approach the 2024 elections.
The phrase 'it's the economy, stupid' was central to Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign strategy, emphasizing economic dissatisfaction amid a recession.
Growing partisanship has altered how voters perceive economic performance, often prioritizing party identity over objective economic indicators in elections.
Deep dives
Origins of a Political Slogan
The phrase 'it's the economy, stupid' emerged during the 1992 presidential election as a pivotal campaign strategy for Bill Clinton against incumbent George H.W. Bush. At the time, although the economy was slowly recovering, many voters felt the impacts of a recession, leading to high unemployment rates. Clinton's campaign strategist, James Carville, used this slogan as a simple yet effective reminder to focus on economic issues that resonated with voters' everyday experiences. This sharp communication helped frame the narrative around Bush's perceived economic failures and solidified Clinton's approach to highlight economic dissatisfaction.
Changing Relevance of Economic Performance
The episode examines the enduring relevance of economic conditions in electoral politics, suggesting that voters often assess candidates through the lens of economic performance. While traditionally, economic prosperity has correlated with successful re-election campaigns for incumbents, this relationship appears to be evolving. Recent perceptions indicate that notwithstanding positive economic indicators under the Biden administration, his approval ratings have not reflected the economic improvements. Historical data indicates that even with solid economic performance, public sentiment may still pivot around partisan views rather than straightforward economic metrics.
Evolving Voter Preferences and Partisanship
The discussion also highlights how growing partisanship influences electoral outcomes, suggesting voters today may prioritize party identity over economic indicators. Research shows a stark increase in the number of voters who view the opposing party unfavorably, which has transformed the electoral landscape. This heightened partisanship complicates how economic performance is perceived and valued, as voters align more strongly with ideological divides rather than objective assessments of economic wellbeing. Ultimately, this shift could signal a diminishing role of the economy in shaping election results, instead pushing candidates to engage with more divisive social issues.
This is the first installment of the 538 Politics podcast mini-series, “Campaign Throwback.” Across three episodes, we're taking a look back at campaign tropes from past elections such as, “it’s the economy, stupid,” or “soccer moms” or that question about which candidate you’d rather share a beer with. We’ll ask where those tropes came from, whether they were actually true at the time and if they still hold up today.
Our first installment: “It’s the economy, stupid.” It's a trope that dates back to Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign. Clinton's chief strategist at the time, James Carville, had three main messages for his staff to remember: 1) Change vs. more of the same 2) The economy, stupid, and 3) Don't forget about healthcare. The second message was memorialized in a 1993 documentary about the Clinton campaign called "The War Room," and has taken on a life of its own in the field of election analysis. But is it accurate?