2004: John Kerry

“You might have thought that, three years after a devastating terrorist attack on American soil, a period which has featured two wars, radical political and economic legislation, and an adjustment to one of the biggest stockmarket crashes in history, the campaign for the presidency would be an especially elevated and notable affair. If so, you would be wrong. This year's battle has been between two deeply flawed men: George Bush, who has been a radical, transforming president but who has never seemed truly up to the job, let alone his own ambitions for it; and John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something only once, and that was 30 years ago. But on November 2nd, Americans must make their choice, as must The Economist. It is far from an easy call, especially against the backdrop of a turbulent, dangerous world. But, on balance, our instinct is towards change rather than continuity: Mr Kerry, not Mr Bush.”

See article: “The incompetent or the incoherent?”

2000: George W. Bush

“The Economist, if it had a vote, would choose George W. Bush. It prefers his small government, pro-market philosophy. And, on the simple test of the two crises, he wins on points: behind on a foreign crisis, but well ahead in a domestic one. The tenor of his presidency would depend crucially on Congress: to restrain the social illiberalism and occasional isolationism of other Republicans, the best outcome would be a divided one, with the Democrats back in control of the House of Representatives. Let's see.”

See article: “Crunch time”

1996: Bob Dole

“He [Bill Clinton] has, to be sure, learned from his mistakes. His foreign-policy touch has grown sharper. Brought to his knees by the 1994 mid-term congressional elections, he recast himself as a moderate Republican, keen to balance the budget by 2002, to declare that the “era of big government was over” and, at last, to begin reforming welfare. It is on that ticket that he has run this year, making many small pledges but no new big ones. If he sticks to that position, his second term might not be at all bad. Such a president would be a good balance to a Republican Congress, if (as is to be hoped) that party retains its control of it. Many of the ideas that such a Congress would stand for, including tax reform and further reform of the government safety net, are good ones; President Clinton could usefully restrain the Republicans' social-policy extremists.

But will he stick to that position? That is the question that will always surround him. If he does, this newspaper will congratulate him in 2000 when he retires. But the risk is that he will not. He will face financial constraints imposed by the bond markets, but none of the constraints of re-election. He may be beset by ethical problems, whether over campaign finance or Whitewater indictments, even conceivably of his wife. These might lead him in all sorts of new directions, especially if he has been re-elected on a landslide, and if the Democrats were to regain control of one or both of the houses of Congress. No one can be sure what he would do in such circumstances. And that is why The Economist feels unable to endorse him. We would not know what we were backing.

Would we know with Bob Dole? It is hard to be sure. We choose him on the assumption that the real Bob Dole is the one who spent three decades on Capitol Hill, not this year's dubious character; that he would be more prudent than his economic plan implies. That is an awkward basis for an endorsement. But the choice is a lousy one.”

1992: Bill Clinton

“What choice between these two [Bill Clinton and George Bush]? On past occasions The Economist has sometimes joined in with American elections and stated its preference; and it has sometimes opted out. In 1988, when George Bush faced Michael Dukakis, we felt we could recommend neither. Four years on, Mr Bush has done nothing to prove himself. The man is spent, and his party with him. The Republicans, tired to distraction, out of ideas, have become prey to a far right whose economic nostrums run to demonising taxes, and many of whose social ideas would rub salt in the country's wounds.

The issue of ideas is central. The Democratic Party, to be sure, has not yet proved that its new look goes beyond Mr Clinton and his circle. But it has been working for 12 years on how to become a plausible modern party of government, and should be given a chance to try. During the campaign, Mr Clinton has proved himself to be far more than a token candidate. He is intelligent; he is diligent; he is energetic; he has grasped most of the issues, and found persuasive solutions to some. He could mark an end to divided government and could, if he used the presidency well, begin to bring Americans, black and white, rich and poor, closer together. Despite the risks, the possibilities are worth pursuing. Our choice falls on him.”

1988: No endorsement

“The Economist would sometimes like to vote in American elections. In 1980 we saw the arguments for Mr Ronald Reagan and made them: he seemed to offer better solutions to the problems that then faced America, and the West generally, than did Mr Jimmy Carter. This year neither candidate has persuaded us that he has either the policies or, more important, the qualities that the times demand.

It is not that Mr Bush and Mr Dukakis are rapscallions. At the end of the primary season we wrote that they were "responsible, upright and experienced in their different ways". They still are. But what they are not, it seems, is presidential. Since the primaries, during which candidates can be forgiven some excesses, neither has once shown that he understands the threat that the budget deficit poses. Not once on this—or any other— issue has either shown one scrap of political courage.”

1984: No endorsement

“In the four years since America elected Ronald Reagan, the voters have felt their country change. Most think the change has been for the better. A new spirit of self-assurance and optimism prevails. As Mr Walter Mondale has sensibly acknowledged, Mr Reagan deserves some credit for this. The president whom America elects on November 6th will be able to build on the achievements of the past four years. He will also have to make good some shortcomings....

This is not to deny that Mr Mondale could make a fine president. Nothing he has said or done in the campaign suggests that, if Americans wanted him, the rest of the world would not find him acceptable too. He shows greater recognition of certain problems ahead. Although Mr Reagan's ultra-Keynesian America is barrelling along towards full employment, all its trading and budget accounts are frighteningly out of balance. A sound international economic order cannot be built on the assumption that the rumbustiously richest country will go on borrowing unprecedented amounts at enormous interest rates from everybody else for ever.”

1980: Ronald Reagan

“Are these the signs of a flexible man, a pragmatist rather than an ideologue? Or is Mr Reagan just empty, an actor who can speak the lines that go down best with the audience he happens to be addressing? The question will not matter if Mr Reagan has sound advisers and knows how to use their advice. This, surely, is the key to the whole choice. Many, though by no means all, of his current advisers are indeed sound, and the evidence from his time governing California and from what the more impressive of them say is that his greatest quality is to be a good listener—though not to the legislature, which he treated with disdain. Mr Carter is generally a bad listener. There can be no certainty that Mr Reagan, victorious at the age of nearly 70, would pick well, cut through his competing lieutenants and have the agility of mind to see the critical issues. If he did, however, he would probably be a more successful leader of opinion than Mr Carter, who has so often taken his cue from the latest poll.

There is a choice in this election: the two main candidates are not clones, and thoughtful Mr John Anderson, with no prospect of winning and no party to run congress if he did, is no real escape from the poverty of choice. Another four years of Mr Carter would probably be much like the past four—for there is nothing in the president's make-up to lead one to believe he is likely to change his ways. Mr Reagan brings with him some heavy ideological baggage. Some of that, though not all of it, will need to be quickly shed. But Mr Reagan also holds out the promise of a firmer line abroad, based on a sounder structure of advice. He would almost certainly bring in more new ideas, for the Republican party now shows more signs of intellectual vitality than the Democrats.

The justification of a Reagan gamble is the prospect that the Republican governing establishment available from four years ago is, at almost every level, more impressive and more reassuring than the central coterie and the usually powerless cabinet generals Mr Carter has used these past four years in Washington. That, perhaps, is the most pressing reason why so many of America's friends want, unusually in a presidential election, to see a change at the top, even one laden with risk. We agree with them.”