Post by Old Badger on Feb 3, 2020 23:17:25 GMT -5
As the white people of Iowa complete their task of "sifting and winnowing" let me add a note of pessimism to their efforts: it's probably all for nothing. In the end, it's likely that we'll wind up with four more years of Donald Trump making America look ridiculous, as he clowns his way through his long-running TV show, "The Apprentice: White House" (in which he plays the apprentice). Here's why:
A number of political scientists and economists have development models to predict the outcome of elections. (NOTE: Polls are not predictive; they are point-in-time snapshots of public opinion.)These models vary in some ways, but for the most part they focus on what are called the "fundamentals" of US election behavior. While journalists spend countless hours looking into the minutiae of campaigns--organizations, endorsements, fund-raising, issue positions, personalities, 'way-too-early polls, etc.--the model-builders focus on a few key economic and political indicators that have proven to be highly predictive of election outcomes over the years. In other words, while the journos study the noise, the academicians concentrate on what really counts.
One example is Roy Fair, and economist at Yale. His model takes account of two economic variables (real growth rate of GDP per capita, absolute value of CPI inflation), and two political variables (incumbency and years incumbent party in office). Generally speaking, a high growth rate, low inflation rate, incumbent candidate, but fewer than 8 years with the incumbent party in power (duration effect) all are good for the incumbent party. As of January 30, the predicted value of GDP per capita annualized growth rate in the three months leading to the election is 2.2 percent, the inflation rate 2.0 percent; Trump will run as the incumbent, but the GOP will have held the WH for only 4 years. Writes Fair, "The current case is the best possible one for the Republicans according to the equation: President running again and no negative duration effect. In this case it takes a weak economy to have the voting equation predict the Democrats getting close to 50 percent of the two-party vote." In short, barring a sudden recession, Trump should win easily, by his estimation by 54-46 percent, not counting votes for other candidates. Other models produce similar results. link
There is one reason for hope: in 2016 Fair's model predicted a GOP candidate would with by 56-44 percent of the two-party vote. Mainly, this was due to the fact that the Dems had held the WH for 8 years, and there is a pattern of changing parties after 8 years (the biggest exception being the FDR elections). In fact, Clinton won the two-party vote 51-49 percent. That means Trump ran 7 percentage points behind what he should have gotten. This can be attributed to Trump himself--his norm-breaking actually cost him votes that a more "normal" Republican (say, Mario Rubio) might have won. If that were to happen this year, the Dem again would win the popular vote; the Electoral Vote could swing the election, but a 53-47 Dem win likely would assure the EVs, too.
So it may not turn out as feared, but it's hard to be overly optimistic. The latest polling shows that a majority of Americans believes that the impeachment charges against Trump are true, and that his actions were wrong...but by 52-45 percent they oppose his removal by the Senate. That suggests to me that even another scandal won't be enough to defeat him. So, given that and the unlikelihood of a recession this year, Trump's in a pretty good position to get re-elected, no matter whom the Dems nominate. So, I'm preparing for the next four years of Trump, with the hope that the Dems will pick up four Senate seats to provide protection against his worst instincts, since the GOP is too cowardly to do the job.
A number of political scientists and economists have development models to predict the outcome of elections. (NOTE: Polls are not predictive; they are point-in-time snapshots of public opinion.)These models vary in some ways, but for the most part they focus on what are called the "fundamentals" of US election behavior. While journalists spend countless hours looking into the minutiae of campaigns--organizations, endorsements, fund-raising, issue positions, personalities, 'way-too-early polls, etc.--the model-builders focus on a few key economic and political indicators that have proven to be highly predictive of election outcomes over the years. In other words, while the journos study the noise, the academicians concentrate on what really counts.
One example is Roy Fair, and economist at Yale. His model takes account of two economic variables (real growth rate of GDP per capita, absolute value of CPI inflation), and two political variables (incumbency and years incumbent party in office). Generally speaking, a high growth rate, low inflation rate, incumbent candidate, but fewer than 8 years with the incumbent party in power (duration effect) all are good for the incumbent party. As of January 30, the predicted value of GDP per capita annualized growth rate in the three months leading to the election is 2.2 percent, the inflation rate 2.0 percent; Trump will run as the incumbent, but the GOP will have held the WH for only 4 years. Writes Fair, "The current case is the best possible one for the Republicans according to the equation: President running again and no negative duration effect. In this case it takes a weak economy to have the voting equation predict the Democrats getting close to 50 percent of the two-party vote." In short, barring a sudden recession, Trump should win easily, by his estimation by 54-46 percent, not counting votes for other candidates. Other models produce similar results. link
There is one reason for hope: in 2016 Fair's model predicted a GOP candidate would with by 56-44 percent of the two-party vote. Mainly, this was due to the fact that the Dems had held the WH for 8 years, and there is a pattern of changing parties after 8 years (the biggest exception being the FDR elections). In fact, Clinton won the two-party vote 51-49 percent. That means Trump ran 7 percentage points behind what he should have gotten. This can be attributed to Trump himself--his norm-breaking actually cost him votes that a more "normal" Republican (say, Mario Rubio) might have won. If that were to happen this year, the Dem again would win the popular vote; the Electoral Vote could swing the election, but a 53-47 Dem win likely would assure the EVs, too.
So it may not turn out as feared, but it's hard to be overly optimistic. The latest polling shows that a majority of Americans believes that the impeachment charges against Trump are true, and that his actions were wrong...but by 52-45 percent they oppose his removal by the Senate. That suggests to me that even another scandal won't be enough to defeat him. So, given that and the unlikelihood of a recession this year, Trump's in a pretty good position to get re-elected, no matter whom the Dems nominate. So, I'm preparing for the next four years of Trump, with the hope that the Dems will pick up four Senate seats to provide protection against his worst instincts, since the GOP is too cowardly to do the job.
