Have post-election hot takes always been wrong?

Scoring what the New York Times has said about elections through history

The two weeks since the election have seen a flurry of recriminations and blame on the left and exultation and backpatting on the right. We are in the midst of explanations and will continue to be for a while.

There is a lot to be digested, but the basics of the story for me is that people were unhappy about inflation over the past few years, punished the incumbent as they’ve done so across the world, and despite Kamala Harris outperforming across the swing states, it wasn’t enough to overcome the starting deficit. This is not to say that other explanations about the media environment, Biden’s age, sexism, racism, housing costs, etc, are wrong, but that they probably had a smaller impact than the overall political environment.

But it got me thinking. This story is based on the most immediate of information and may be proven wrong in retrospect when we look back. Or maybe that first brush with the data gives us the best picture before it’s obscured by intraparty fighting.

So I decided to look back on the immediate explanations for presidential elections in the past. To keep it as simple as possible, I’m looking only at the New York Times on the day after an election, and citing the first causal linkage they mention.

Whether this proves that reporters are right or wrong, it should provide everyone fodder for how accurate they should be treating what they hear right now.

Since every election to 1852 will take a while, here is Part 1, going back to 2000.

2024

“Mr. Trump’s victory caps the astonishing political comeback of a man who was charged with plotting to overturn the last election but who tapped into frustrations and fears about the economy and illegal immigration to defeat Vice President Kamala Harris.”

Accuracy score: 6/10. While the first explanation cites the economy, it doesn’t mention inflation, the single most important issue.

2020

“Mr. Biden’s victory amounted to a repudiation of Mr. Trump by millions of voters exhausted with his divisive conduct and chaotic administration, and was delivered by an unlikely alliance of women, people of color, old and young voters and a sliver of disaffected Republicans.”

Accuracy score: 8/10. There is no single definitive account of the 2020 election, but Trump’s personality and unpopularity was clearly one of the main drivers, along with the failures around COVID that led to wide Democratic leads throughout the year.

2016

“Donald Trump Is Elected President in Stunning Repudiation of the Establishment”

“The triumph for Mr. Trump, 70, a real estate developer-turned-reality television star with no government experience, was a powerful rejection of the establishment forces that had assembled against him, from the world of business to government, and the consensus they had forged on everything from trade to immigration… And it was a decisive demonstration of power by a largely overlooked coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters who felt that the promise of the United States had slipped their grasp amid decades of globalization and multiculturalism.”

Accuracy score: 5/10. Like many post-2016 analyses, it wasn’t wrong, per se, simply an overly vague and yet also narrow read of the election. Hillary Clinton’s personal approval ratings, the Jim Comey letter, Trump’s moderation on traditional Republican issues were likely more decisive, but were all ignored in the immediate surprise.

2012

“Hispanics made up an important part of Mr. Obama’s winning coalition, preliminary exit poll data showed. And before the night was through, there were already recriminations from Republican moderates who said Mr. Romney had gone too far during the primaries in his statements against those here illegally, including his promise that his get-tough policies would cause some to “self-deport.””

Accuracy score: 3/10. In the initial story, this was the first clear causal rather than descriptive statement. It was also mostly wrong. Obama’s win was due to an overall support on the economic recovery after the Great Recession. What’s interesting is that this idea about the Latino vote directly led to the Republican “autopsy” and the immigration proposal made by Sen. Marco Rubio in the next Congress. We see the seeds of legislation in 2013 in the immediate takeaways of 2012.

2008

“Mr. Obama’s election amounted to a national catharsis — a repudiation of a historically unpopular Republican president and his economic and foreign policies, and an embrace of Mr. Obama’s call for a change in the direction and the tone of the country.”

Accuracy score: 9/10. For as much as 2008 was a historic event - it’s sometimes easy to forget how hard it was to imagine we’d have the first Black president just a few years before this - it was also easy to explain. The incumbent party was deeply unpopular, overseeing a war that by that time was seen as a mistake, and a financial crisis. Losing was basic political science.

2004

“Mr. Bush's victory was powered in no small part by a huge turnout among evangelical Christians, who may seek a bigger voice in critical White House decisions over the next four years - in particular, Supreme Court nominations that are likely to consume parts of Mr. Bush's second term.”

Accuracy score: 7/10. This wasn’t wrong, but also wasn’t the whole story, with the popular boost from the Iraq War still helping Bush and negative attack ads on his own military service hurting Kerry.

2000

“Mr. Bush, who presented himself as an antidote to the scandals of the Clinton years and pledged to reach across the partisan divide and restore dignity to the White House, swept the South and won a patchwork of states in the Midwest.”

Accuracy score: 8/10. This election account was notable for having its explanation buried deep in the story. Most of the early paragraphs were focused on the Supreme Court decision and the legal disputes. But looking back, this was the main driver of Bush’s campaign, even if it didn’t deliver him a popular vote victory.

Overall stats

2000-2024: Average accuracy score - 6.6

Next week

We’ll look at the election explanations from 1952 to 1996. This will take us back into the old NYT front pages and back to the days when local New York elections snuck their way into the headlines before Congressional stories.