So now the pertinent question at hand: Who wins the Presidential election of 2012? Well, of course we all know that it is the Electoral College according to the Constitution that elects our Presidents. Still only one man in over a century has been elected President without the greatest share of the popular vote. In fact, not a single election in the 20th Century was determined contrary to the popular vote. So the first part of my analysis will address who I believe will win the popular vote
and the 2nd part will address the all-important college and the possibility that it may in fact split from the popular vote as it did in 2000.
According to a statistical analysis, the best way to determine the results of Presidential elections is to use those statistics with the highest degree of predictive accuracy. Those who make their living predicting election results have used a multitude of different statistics to determine who will prevail. Some use an economic anlysis by reviewing charts of America's GDP or the national unemployment rate during the current President's term. Others study polls of the President's popularity or America's opinion of his job performance. Rather amusingly, some will even study the outcome of sporting events in comparison with the terms of previous Presidents. In each case, an attempt is made to predict the outcome of a Presidential election by comparing statistics that have a high level of consistency with respect to past results in relation to each of these indicators.
When conducting my analysis, I begin with an admittedly controvsersial method devised almost 20 years ago by Prof. Alan Lichtman of American University in Washington D.C., called, "TheThirteen Keys to the Presidency."
In it, he asserts that regardless of the strengths of the candidates campaigns; how much money they raise, how many campaign stops they make across the country, how well the candidates do in debates, or who gets picked to be the Vice Presidential running mate, the outcome of the election is determined by 13 questions primarily regarding the current President's performance in office. If any 6 of these are answered in the negative, the President's party loses the popular vote and most likely, the election. If 5 or fewer are answered negatively, the President's party wins the Popular vote.
These are the Keys (from the book):
Key 1: Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous mid-term.
Key 2: Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination.
Key 3: Incumbency: The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting President.
Key 4: Third Party: There is no significant third-party or independent campaign.
Key 5: Short-Term Economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Key 6: Long-Term Economy: Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous 2 terms.
Key 7: Policy Change: The Incumbent Administration effects major changes in national policy.
Key 8: Social Unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Key 9: Scandal: The incumbent adminsitration is untainted by major scandal.
Key 10: Foreign/Military Failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Key 11: Foreign/Military Success: The incumbent administration achieves a mahor success in foreign or military affairs.
Key 12: Incumbent Charisma: The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Key 13: Challenger Charisma: The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
The reason I find this method of analysis so provocative is because it's fundamental focus on accountability and how it potentially puts the lie to the idea that time we as Americans spend on politics int his country is fundamentally unnecessary.
The first four of these are entirely political: 1) The Mandate: Does the President's party retain numbers in the House of Representatives after the mid-term election in excess of what they held before the last Presidential election. In our case we'd be comparing the current House controlled by Speaker John Boehner and the Republicans with that run by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats at the end of George Bush's last term, after 2006, but before Obama was elected. Clearly, with change in party control the Democrats' legislative mandate was overturned. RESULT: Obama takes a hit, losing one key to Romney.
Remember, if Romney takes six keys from the President he wins the popular vote. Otherwise, he loses it. Can the Electoral College still go the other way? Yes, and perhaps we're in a period of history where the odds of this are higher, but they still aren't favorable. And the impact of the popular vote on the outcome in Congress will be the same regardless. More on this at the end.
2) Party primary: Is the President subject to a challenge from within his own party? There was serious concern immediately after the Democrat's major mid-term losses in the 2010 elections would result in a primary challenge to the President, however except for brief mentions of Hillary Clinton, most of those who were asked and considered the possibility were on the Far Left, eg. Dennis Kucinich and the Socialist from Vermont, Bernie Sanders. In combination with a bad economy a primary challenge, even when it fails, can be fatal to a Presidency. In fact, the last successful primary challenge to a sitting President was in 1852 for the Whig Party nomination and resulted in the party's demise and the emergence of the Republicans.
In this case no challenge emerged. RESULT: Obama holds at -1 key.
3) Incumbency: Is the incumbent running for re-election? This one is a gimme.
RESULT: Obama holds at -1 key.
4) Third Party: Third party or Independent challenge. The final political key is also considered by Prof. Lichtman to be a given. If such a challenge had emerged, pundits would be analyzing which of the major parties would lose the most votes. For instance, if Ron Paul had decided to run again for the Libertarian nomination or an independent campaign, would his fiscal conservatism have hurt Romney more, or would his opposition to intervention abroad have taken votes from Obama?
Lichtman says ALL original 3rd parties or independents ARE a strike against the incumbent. Candidates of existing 3rd parties, taking less than a percentage point nationally don't count. Perhaps that's a judgement call, but if the candidate isn't thought to be able to effect the popular vote outcome, it's safe to hold this key for the Democrats. RESULT: Obama holds 3 of the 4 political keys and is still down only -1 key.
The next 2 keys concern the economy.
5) Short-Term Economy: Whether the economy is in recession DURING the Fall election campaign.
Of any of the 13 keys, #5 would easily be considered the President's greatest weakness. As Labor Day passed it seems unlikely they win this one. And this could be decisive, as you will see. Result: Obama at -2.
6) Long-Term Economy: Whether economic growth during the current Presidential term equals or exceeds the average growth during the two just prior (in this case, the 8 years of President Bush.) According to Wikipedia growth during the Bush years averaged 2.5 even accounting for the recession that began at the very end of his 2nd term and the attacks on 9-11. By comparison, though the economy did emerge from economic contraction of late 2008 and early 2009, growth estimates during 2012 had to be adjusted downwards by the Administration with economic growth during the Obama term over all averaging 1.5%. RESULT: Obama now at -3, due primarily to the state of the economy.
At this point it would seem the President is halfway to losing his job, however...
7) Policy Change: Whether the incumbent Administration effects major change in National policy.
This one is a no-brainer. In a word: Obamacare. I could go into all the other pieces of legislation the Democrats enacted when they were in the Supermajority, but for the purposes of this excercise it's unnecessary. Result: The President holds at -3.
8) Social Unrest: This one is a little harder to define. As the Author says, "as the criteria for social unrest are less specific than for the other keys, " defining social unrest, "is the most difficult to call retroactively." In fact, the author elaborates on a number of events in U.S. history, a few of which I knew (John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry helped start the Civil War, and the Bonus March on Washington where WWI veterans were attacked by Gen. Pershing's troops was a major strike against Herbert Hoover anticipating the election of FDR), but also a few I'd never even heard of. According to the author all but 3 of the incidents that counted against a President occured during the 19th Century. He gave a number of unsatisfying reasons for what should count and what should not. But in looking over his choices a possible answer is that to turn this key against a President the violence involved in the unrest must be viewed by the voters as the harbinger of something unresolved.
I don't see anything like that today. Protests by the Tea Party have been peaceful and those of the Occupy Wall Street movement, if a bit unsanitary at times, were also ended in an orderly fashion once authorities requested them to leave. RESULT: The President continues to hold: -3
At this point, the balance has clearly shifted. The President is still half way to defeat, however, with 5 keys still left to decide, 3 of the 5 (a majority) would have to fall in order for that to happen. The odds are now even.
A good time to take break.
No comments:
Post a Comment