Who will win in November

Submitted by Gabriel on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 2:39pm. Tags:

Politics

Today's Paul Krugman column has a section that I found very interesting:

Political scientists, by and large, believe that what happens on the campaign trail, while it gives talking heads something to talk about, is more or less irrelevant to what happens on Election Day. Instead, they place their faith in statistical analyses that identify three main determinants of presidential voting.

First, votes are affected by the state of the economy — mainly economic performance in the year or so preceding the election.

Second, the approval rating of the current president strongly affects his party’s ability to hold power.

Third, the electorate seems to suffer from an eight-year itch: parties rarely manage to hold the White House for more than two terms in a row.

I found it interesting for two reasons:

A few weeks ago we had some debate in one of the diaries about just how bad the Democrat's recent electoral experience has truly been. I've long argued that most arguments that claim that the Democrat's fortunes turned for a generation after 1968 (mostly explained for national security reasons) is based on selection bias. There's no special reason to focus on 1968 as the starting point and when you choose other starting points the argument starts falling apart. Part of the problem with this "Dems lost generation' argument is that is stated in general terms but only seems to have any basis on presidential results. Congress remained in Dem hands long after 1968, for example.

A core error in the argument '1968' argument is that ignores the historical evidence that presidential election results in the US tend to move in 8 year cycles, something Krugman mentions. (another problem with the '1968' argument is the reference to popular vote results, irrelevant in our electoral system, and something political campaigns are not designed to maximize).

The second reason I find it interesting is that it raises the question of whether most of the political debates we have had and will continue to have are simply a waste of time. If models show that you can predict elections with no knowledge of political campaigns or ideology then most of the debate goes by the wayside.

Reading Redstate they seem convinced that McCain will win easily. If true this will show the economic models are not that useful. But if come November Obama wins clearly then maybe we should retire the whole pundit class?

Standard Disclaimer: I only speak for myself. I may or not agree with others. Ask, if you are curious. If I post about X I may not have an opinion about Y, no matter how closely related you think they are.

Gabriel's blog
Login or register to post comments

There's no doubt this is something of a perfect storm (#93455)

by Wagster on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 7:12pm

Krugman is just scratching at the top of it. Also vitally important: the traditional 2:1 money advantage of the Republicans has been reversed.

I will add something else I've been thinking about in regard to Obama. Neither the Republicans or the media have been able to fit him in a negative stereotype just yet. Look at past candidates:

Dukakis: Unemotional and detached technocrat
George H.W. Bush: Out of touch patrician
Bill Clinton: Insincere cad
Bob Dole: crotchety old man
George W. Bush: Stubborn idiot
Al Gore: Stiff and prevaricating
John Kerry: Bombastic and effete

Notice that all these stereotypes have at least a kernel of truth in them... some have a lot of truth in them.

Now, what is Barack Obama? Some of our conservative friends would kindly offer "elitist", and perhaps that's the closest we've gotten to a stereotype for him, but it hasn't stuck. How many late night punchlines have you heard based on premise that Obama is elitist? I would be surprised if you've heard any. The reason the stereotype isn't sticking is because there's not even a kernel of truth in it: it's hard to argue that a black man, son of a single mother, who passed up big bucks after college to go back and help the people in South Chicago, who only recently finished paying off his student loans, is an elitist.

I don't think we can get to November without developing a negative stereotype for Obama -- the comedians need a hook -- but I don't see it yet. Wright bruised Obama's strength, his ability to unite people, but it didn't really give us a negative take. Only the most partisan crazies think Obama is some kind of angry black separatist in disguise, ready to explode into racist rancor once he's elected President; the people that think that are too out there to have voted for him in the first place.

Most voters are low-information creatures; these thumbnail caricatures the media creates, along with the gut feeling they get from a candidate, are the most they know about a contender. So far, Obama's persona has been attractive and amazingly resilient.

More Wagster!

(

)

Bowers makes a good point (#93506)

by stillnotking on Sat, 05/10/2008 - 11:57am

on the efficacy of bull**** in campaigning. He thinks Democrats don't do it, which makes me wonder if he's ever read any Lyndon Johnson bios, but the thesis is sound.

You're right, though, that there has to be a hook. They haven't found a credible one on Obama yet. Even if they do, it'll have to be a real killer to win this one for them. Former pastors, the Pledge of Allegiance, and "Bittergate" (*snort*) aren't going to cut it.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

(

Who will win in November

Comment viewing options