Presidential elections have always carried significant weight for the construction industry. Infrastructure funding, transportation policy, and building regulations are all shaped by the priorities of the White House. When the 2016 election cycle began, the construction community paid close attention to where candidates stood on these issues. One notable study from CG/LA Infrastructure ranked the candidates based on their history and proposed plans for infrastructure investment, offering valuable insight into how presidential housing policy positions affect home builders and the housing market more broadly. Understanding these rankings helps construction professionals anticipate policy shifts that could impact their businesses for years to come.
How the CG/LA Study Ranked Presidential Candidates
CG/LA Infrastructure, an organization dedicated to advancing global infrastructure through leadership forums, advisory services, and market intelligence, released a ranking system for the 2016 presidential candidates. This study was part of their Blueprint 2025 campaign, which aimed to substantially increase infrastructure funding through the year 2025. The organization evaluated candidates using several key measures to determine which contenders would best champion economists predict recession after 2020 election what construction firms should know about the connection between political leadership and industry stability.
The results revealed a tight race at the top. Bernie Sanders and John Kasich tied for first place with 18 points each, reflecting strong records and clear proposals for infrastructure improvement. Donald Trump followed closely with 17 points, while Hillary Clinton ranked fourth with 11 points. The close scoring demonstrated that infrastructure was a cross-party issue with no single candidate dominating the conversation.
The study used three primary evaluation criteria:
- Historical infrastructure building record – examining what candidates had accomplished in public office or private sector roles regarding infrastructure projects
- Current infrastructure improvement plans – evaluating proposed policies and funding commitments for upgrading national infrastructure
- Catalyst potential for infrastructure funding – assessing the ability to rally political and public support for major infrastructure investments
As Norman F. Anderson, President and CEO of CG/LA Infrastructure, stated in a press release: “Every successful presidential candidate for the last two generations has promised to build our infrastructure, helping us to regain our global competitiveness – none has been able to do it.” This candid assessment underscored the gap between campaign promises and actual delivery that the construction industry has witnessed across multiple administrations.
Key Factors That Determine a Candidate’s Infrastructure Commitment
The CG/LA study highlighted several critical factors that construction professionals should consider when evaluating any presidential candidate. Infrastructure commitment goes far beyond campaign speeches and promises. It involves a track record of securing funding, navigating regulatory hurdles, and delivering projects that improve national connectivity and economic competitiveness. The concrete and construction industries top economist releases 2024 outlook for inflation chances of a recession infrastructure projects in a presidential election year, showing that these concerns remain highly relevant across election cycles.
For construction firms, the most important indicators of a pro-infrastructure candidate include:
- Past legislative action – whether the candidate has introduced or supported infrastructure bills in Congress or at the state level
- Funding mechanisms proposed – specific plans for how infrastructure projects would be financed, whether through federal budgets, public-private partnerships, or innovative funding models
- Regulatory approach – willingness to streamline permitting processes while maintaining environmental and safety standards
- Cross-party collaboration – ability to build coalitions across the aisle to pass infrastructure legislation
Bernie Sanders earned high marks for proposing a major infrastructure investment initiative in the Senate and being consistently vocal about the need for infrastructure upgrades. His proposals focused on large-scale federal investment in roads, bridges, water systems, and public transit. John Kasich scored well because of his hands-on experience leading major infrastructure repairs in Ohio as governor, demonstrating that state-level executive leadership can translate into higher rankings in national assessments.
Donald Trump ranked highly primarily due to his extensive background in real estate development and construction business operations. This practical industry experience gave him a unique perspective on project delivery timelines, cost management, and the regulatory challenges that construction firms face daily. The rankings showed that industry experience could compensate for the lack of a detailed legislative track record when evaluating a candidate’s potential to support construction.
State-Level Infrastructure Leadership as a Presidential Indicator
The 2016 rankings demonstrated that state-level leadership experience correlates strongly with a candidate’s ability to deliver on infrastructure promises. John Kasich’s performance in the study was directly linked to his work as Governor of Ohio, where he oversaw significant infrastructure repair and modernization programs. This pattern mirrors findings from major cultural and civic projects, such as the Snohetta Roosevelt Presidential Library design landscape integrated architecture for cultural institutions, where state-level collaboration and leadership were essential to project success.
Several important lessons emerge from examining the relationship between state governance and national infrastructure potential:
- Governors who have managed large-scale infrastructure projects understand the practical challenges of funding, permitting, and construction management
- State-level infrastructure successes often serve as templates for national policy frameworks
- Candidates with executive experience at the state level tend to have stronger working relationships with federal agencies
- The ability to balance budgets while investing in infrastructure at the state level indicates fiscal discipline that can scale to federal programs
The study’s methodology implicitly recognized that infrastructure leadership is not solely about making promises but about demonstrating the ability to execute. This distinction matters enormously for construction contractors who need predictable funding streams and consistent regulatory environments to plan their workforce, equipment purchases, and project pipelines effectively.
The Long-Term Impact of Presidential Elections on Construction Policy
Presidential elections create ripple effects across the construction industry that extend well beyond the four-year term. The policies and priorities established by a new administration influence everything from federal highway funding to building code updates and environmental regulations. Understanding these long-term implications is crucial for transportation infrastructure funding in 2021 what election results and the new administration mean for construction contractors in adapting their business strategies to shifting political landscapes.
| Policy Area | Short-Term Impact (1-2 Years) | Long-Term Impact (3-8 Years) |
|---|---|---|
| Federal highway funding | Existing projects continue under prior appropriations | New transportation bill shapes project pipeline for decades |
| Environmental regulations | Executive orders modify enforcement priorities | Rulemaking processes permanently alter compliance requirements |
| Infrastructure investment | Budget proposals signal administration priorities | Major funding packages determine national project backlogs |
| Public-private partnerships | Federal guidance encourages or discourages P3 models | Legal and regulatory frameworks for P3 projects become established |
| Workforce development | Apprenticeship programs and training grants adjust | Vocational education policy shapes future labor availability |
The 2016 election highlighted a persistent challenge for the construction sector: infrastructure investment has strong bipartisan support in principle but often stalls over funding mechanisms, project selection criteria, and the balance between federal and state control. The CG/LA study’s finding that candidates from across the political spectrum scored highly on infrastructure commitment suggested that the issue itself was not divisive, but rather the approaches to achieving it varied significantly.
What the Construction Industry Should Watch in Future Elections
The 2016 election cycle provided a useful template for how construction professionals can evaluate candidates in any election year. Rather than relying solely on campaign rhetoric, the CG/LA methodology demonstrated that measurable criteria – past performance, proposed plans, and catalytic potential – could provide meaningful rankings. This analytical approach helps firms make informed decisions about which candidates align with industry interests. Major cultural projects like the new designs revealed for Obama Presidential Center show how presidential legacies and construction projects intersect, creating opportunities and challenges for contractors.
Construction companies should monitor several key indicators during election cycles:
- Infrastructure funding proposals – the size, scope, and funding mechanisms of any proposed infrastructure package
- Regulatory reform plans – proposals to streamline environmental reviews, permitting, and project approval processes
- Trade and tariff policies – positions on steel, lumber, and equipment tariffs that affect material costs
- Workforce and immigration policy – stances on skilled worker visas, apprenticeship programs, and construction labor availability
- Tax policy direction – corporate tax rates, depreciation schedules, and incentives for capital investment in equipment and facilities
The construction industry’s unique position as both an economic driver and a beneficiary of government investment means that election outcomes directly affect business conditions. Firms that understand the policy positions of candidates and can anticipate post-election shifts gain a competitive advantage in project bidding, workforce planning, and strategic investments.
Understanding the connection between electoral outcomes and industry conditions is essential for long-term business planning. The infrastructure investment lessons from presidential leadership why federal funding momentum matters for construction demonstrate that sustained political commitment is often more important than the size of any single funding package.
Building a Resilient Strategy Through Political Cycles
Construction firms that succeed across multiple election cycles share several strategic approaches. They diversify their project portfolios across public and private sectors so that no single funding source determines their viability. They maintain strong relationships with industry associations that advocate for infrastructure investment regardless of which party holds power. They invest in workforce development programs that operate independently of federal funding cycles. And they stay informed about the policy positions of candidates at every level of government. As the how the election could reshape tax policy for construction businesses analysis shows, tax policy changes following elections can have substantial effects on equipment purchasing decisions, business structure choices, and bottom-line profitability for construction companies of all sizes.
The 2016 election’s infrastructure rankings offered a valuable lesson: the construction industry has the tools and data to evaluate candidates on substance rather than style. By focusing on measurable criteria like past infrastructure accomplishments, specific policy proposals, and demonstrated leadership ability, construction professionals can cut through campaign noise and make informed decisions that support the long-term health of their businesses and the broader industry. Presidential elections will always bring uncertainty, but a well-informed approach to evaluating candidates helps ensure that the construction industry’s voice is heard and its interests are represented in the national conversation about infrastructure investment.