« Complements which are local, not global | Main | Latin American monopolies »
Our next President
Dan Drezner says Obama, I'll muster my delusions about political science to say...
...I hate candidate blogging, but here is my neck on the line. Obama faces too high a chance of self-destruction through scandal, meltdowns, and lack of testing at the national level. Hillary has too many people who won't change their mind about her, is too unpopular with suburban Cincinnati housewives, and looks shrill and ugly on TV. Americans are tired of family dynasties in the White House. Edwards has the best chance of any Democrat but won't get the nomination. Democrats do well when voters' main concern is the economy, not foreign policy; that won't be the case. No matter how badly Iraq goes it helps the Republicans, who benefit from an emphasis on foreign policy, an area where Democrats are never trusted. It is the Democrats who will tear themselves apart over Iraq, not the Republicans. The evangelicals hate a Mormon candidate more than an immoral candidate; the latter allows them to stay unified. McCain looks too old these days, and he peaked too early, so I'll predict Giuliani as our next President. Speeding up the primaries will make it harder for the Christian Right to sabotage him. Rudy has many political negatives, including his name, his home state, and his flamboyant personal history, but all will be neutralized when his opponent is Hillary Clinton.
Don't expect to hear about this topic again.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 16, 2007 at 11:07 PM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Democrats were trusted on foreign policy before Viet Nam. Will the trust in Republicans on foreign policy survive Iraq, or will the party as a whole be blamed for backing his decisions?
Posted by: joan at Mar 16, 2007 11:40:06 PM
Was it LBJ that killed the perception of Democrats on foreign policy? It struck me that it was a combination of McGovern and Carter, but I could be wrong as I wasn't even born until 1986.
Posted by: David at Mar 16, 2007 11:47:56 PM
The Republican party's blind faith in President Bush, and their failure to even attempt to hold him accountable regarding Iraq will hurt them in the foreign policy sphere.
In many ways Americans choose their next President as a reaction to the old President. One of President Bush's assets in 2000 was his stable and uneventful personal life in contrast to President Clinton's personal life. This time I suspect the electorate will be looking for someone who is competent (is well versed in nuances of policy) and who won't be too partisan or ideological, as these were President Bush's weak points.
Senator Obama gives off the perception of being highly competent and above crass partisanship; whether he is or is not is another matter.
I say Barack Obama will be our Presient in 2009.
Posted by: golddog at Mar 17, 2007 12:14:21 AM
It's worth keeping in mind that nowadays "Americans", in the sense of a majority of the nation, do not choose each President; rather, a small minority of Americans do. No presidential nominee has attracted the actual votes of as much as a third of all eligible voters for decades now -- almost half the citizenry has given up on the two national parties altogether.
Hence no national consensus is required in order to win, just the support of 30% or so of the country. It feels right now like the Democrats will be better able to assemble that in 2008 than the GOP, almost without regard to who the specific nominees are.
Posted by: Paul Botts at Mar 17, 2007 12:34:26 AM
I'm still holding out hope that Ron Paul will start getting enough recognition that he'll start being mentioned in all of these predictions.
Posted by: mith at Mar 17, 2007 12:36:45 AM
Ron Paul is too much of a patriot to win. People want somebody without principles in the Presidency -- the better to compromise. Plus, Paul has the whole anti-abortion thing going.
Posted by: Russell Nelson at Mar 17, 2007 1:24:34 AM
Obama faces too high a chance of self-destruction through scandal, meltdowns, and lack of testing at the national level.
I see no reason to believe this is true for Obama more than any other candidate except Hillary, who has been vetted through years of politics.
I think Obama wins in a walk in the general, if he gets the D nomination.
Posted by: JewishAtheist at Mar 17, 2007 1:39:39 AM
Obama's biggest problem is that he is a hard leftist. Every time the mask slips just a little bit, you get a glimpse of a pretty scary dude.
Posted by: srp at Mar 17, 2007 3:05:14 AM
Take a look at the huge buying of the Giuliani event derivative at TradeSports-InTrade:
The Giuliani manipulator/buyer is back
http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/03/09/the-giuliani-manipulator-buyer-is-back/
Posted by: Chris Masse at Mar 17, 2007 3:32:02 AM
Folks,
I have put the charts of the Giuliani and Obama prediction markets on one blog post for you to see:
http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/03/17/was-tyler-cowen-of-marginal-revolution-behind-the-massive-buying-of-the-giuliani-event-derivative/
Enjoy!
Posted by: Chris Masse at Mar 17, 2007 4:02:53 AM
I think Obama's lack of experience will start to hurt him much more as the election nears and people start asking searching questions. Sadly, his race will probably be a factor as well; if the race is close, a ~1% racial swing to the Republicans in swing states (which tend to be less multicultural, except Florida) could make a difference.
I'm going to go with Hillary v. Giuliani, with Giuliani coming out on top. I think America wants a competent, seasoned leader - I hear a lot less posturing about how new to politics they are from candidates this time around (save Obama).
Posted by: Omkar at Mar 17, 2007 4:07:25 AM
giuliani's participation in the 911 coverup should not be forgotten. links: giuliani on 911, firefighters opinion of giuliani.
isnt ron paul the obvious choice? who else understands that solving problems begins with downsizing government? and who else has a track record of voting that is in line with the constitution?
sadly, no one.
here's ron paul's announcement video on youtube.
Posted by: kid mercury at Mar 17, 2007 9:12:59 AM
You would be a fool to bet against Tyler on this.
Posted by: Kent Guida at Mar 17, 2007 11:06:00 AM
I agree with the commenters that suggest that the Republican party will be a negative factor for its candidate in this cycle regardless of supposed economic & foriegn policy edges.
Clinton does come in slightly below Giuliani in trial heat polls:
http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2007/01/pres08-national-trial-heats.html
but it looks like it has become closer recently.
I would begin to sell Obama if he approaches 40% on the Intrade nomination market. Buying the Giuliani and McCain nomination contracts for 67% combined sounds like a good bet here.
(Also, is it possible that ethnic candidates' poll numbers are biased high compared to the results when voters are alone in the booth?)
Posted by: Jason Ruspini at Mar 17, 2007 12:04:06 PM
Obama's biggest problem is that he is a hard leftist. Every time the mask slips just a little bit, you get a glimpse of a pretty scary dude.
Only because you want to see a scary dude, do you see one.
Posted by: perianwyr at Mar 17, 2007 12:10:59 PM
Jason Ruspini said: "(Also, is it possible that ethnic candidates' poll numbers are biased high compared to the results when voters are alone in the booth?)"
Jason, that is likely true, with the extent of the bias (social desireability bias) based on the type of poll. Face-to-face interviews will contain the greatest bias, for instance.
This type of bias was clearly evident in the polls/results on gay marriage bans the last few years. The difference between the polls and the results were quite large (I think there were 10-point differences or more in some states, and the average difference among all states was quite high).
I'd probably subtract 2 to 5 points from Obama's support in the polls. I do hope he wins the nomination, however. Two decades of dynasty rule in this country is obscene.
Posted by: DaveW at Mar 17, 2007 12:21:21 PM
Always interesting to speculate on politics. I just hope that the Democratic Party doesn't decide that fiscal liberal/social conservative is the way to go.
The recent actions of the Minnesota House don't cheer me up. Democrats (the DFL) take the majority for the first time in a few years, and what do they do? Vote to ban the sale of US flags not made in the USA in Minnesota. The bill passed 83-46, with DFLers for 77-4 with 4 not voting, and Republicans opposing 6-42, with 1 not voting.
Posted by: John Thacker at Mar 17, 2007 2:50:01 PM
Ron Paul is too much of a patriot to win. People want somebody without principles in the Presidency -- the better to compromise. Plus, Paul has the whole anti-abortion thing going.
Yeah, like that stopped Bush, Bush, and Reagan from getting elected. Next!
Ron Paul article on foreign policy. Note that Ron Paul is one of the very few of those who voted against the Iraq war, and this includes those who voted for it before they voted against it....
One could argue that the Iraq war is going to be the issue in 2008. Ron Paul will be in fabulous shape to trounce the competition if this is the case.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Mar 17, 2007 3:12:00 PM
Obama faces too high a chance of self-destruction through scandal, meltdowns, and lack of testing at the national level.
"Obama" in the sense of "Guiliani"?
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop at Mar 17, 2007 6:10:04 PM
Only because you want to see a scary dude, do you see one.
Only because his voice is like an octave lower than a normal person's, do I see one.
Posted by: Noumenon at Mar 17, 2007 10:37:33 PM
"One of President Bush's assets in 2000 was his stable and uneventful personal life in contrast to President Clinton's personal life."
This is a joke, right?
Posted by: grad at Mar 18, 2007 1:45:34 AM
Were you not paying attention during the midterms in 2006? Our little misadventure in Iraq did not help Republicans five months ago, and it has not really even begun to go badly.
In fact, it may be that the Iraq debacle will be the event that shifts the "not good on foreign policy" stigma from Democrats to Republicans, especially if a Democrat wins and stabilizes the Middle East.
Americans are learning, for the second time, that even the most powerful and effective military in the world can't solve every problem.
Rudy Giuliani will never be President. Never in a million years. It just isn't going to happen. To convince yourself of this, just close your eyes and imagine all the TV ads with Rudy, Bernie Kerik, and the little apartment Kerik used for his dalliances with Giuliani's approval.
It is difficult for me to imagine a safer bet than this. Go ahead and bet the house.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at Mar 18, 2007 8:45:30 AM
"This is a joke, right?"
grad:
I understand that President Bush had an "eventful" personal life when he was younger, but since he became a born again Christian, his personal life has been more stable. While I don't agree with many of President Bush's policies, as far as I know, there has never been a hint of him having dalliances outside his marriage and I believe that the American electorate, for better or worse (looking back the past 6 years, I would say worse), gave him credit in 2000 for that.
Posted by: golddog at Mar 18, 2007 9:22:20 AM
No matter how badly Iraq goes it helps the Republicans, who benefit from an emphasis on foreign policy
The Republicans hope this is true, but we're long past that point. Americans overwhelmingly agree with the Democrat's plan to leave Iraq. They see the army being overstretched, they're appalled at the Walter Reed scandal, and the trillion dollar war-without-end is going badly.
Republicans also used to benefit from a perception that they'd be more fiscally responsible, but that idea is a comedian's punchline now.
George Bush and the Republican Congress proved what the world would look like under their ideology. People hate what they see.
Posted by: Mikef at Mar 18, 2007 12:05:26 PM
Re. Foreign Policy benefiting GOP:
I think Tyler was referring to Presidential, not off-year, elections. I could be wrong, though. If that is what he meant, I agree.
Iraq was the main issue in '06. But I think you presume too much when saying Americans overwhelmingly want to get out ASAP. The problem was the competence of how the war was being waged in Iraq, and Bush's failure to even hint at a change in tactics, if not strategy. Americans certainly don't seem to be made of quite the same "only thing we have to fear is fear itself" mettle, or even later "bear any burden..." fortitude. Still, we are not THAT fundamentally different for our parents or grandparents generations (I am 28). Americans still have enough of a proud nationalistic streak that, if they think victory if still possible, they will stick it out and heap scorn on those who are perceived as not willing to do so. If victory seems slim to none, on the other hand, we will bug out, but it takes a lot. For example, Vietnam. And, though we finally did bug out, the soul-wrenching hit to American pride (after recovering from a Nixon-induced Carter hangover) was not something Americans were soon to forget. For the first time, the American brand was stained, and America didnt like that.
So, they pick the "happy warrior." Americans gravitate toward optimists. Obama is the only Dem that fills that bill. But, he is for pulling out. Problem: Dems ineptly handled the politics of withdrawl/defunding/etc., so that they now have the worst of both worlds -- things turn around (not great chance, but may be possible) and they were invested in defeat; or things go south and GOP can shift ownership plausibly, even if its only a slight amount, to the Dems for "emboldening the enemy." Bush would not be the sole owner of the defeat any longer.
Anyway, I could be wrong, of course, we all see events through the prisms of our own biases, but...I think Dems have vastly overstated the mandate they got re. Iraq. Think about it - the Dems call for more troops, they confirm Patraeus unanimously, Bush finally gets rid of Rumsfeld, heeds the calls for more troops in a one last push shot at winning, at least attempts to show he is "changing his plans"...and the Dems seem (or very easily can be made to seem) like they won't even give it a shot. As PO'd as Americans are about Iraq, they still would prefer a win over a defeat. Dems seem like they arent even willing to give Bush a shot.
If I am correct that '06 was a call for a change, and a major one at that, in tactics or strategy, but not a call for withdrawl, and if I am correct that if we lose, Dems share somewhat in perceived blame (if we win now, Dems are toast like the Whigs - the Vietnam era Dems will look flag-waving Rambos compared to the current crop)...then GOP still holds the cards on foreign policy.
Couple other considerations: if it's competence, not the war itself, shouldnt be an issue for the GOP candidate: unless W. can get the Constitution amended again, he is out after '08. Rudy oozes natnl security competence; Romney is extremely articulate, putting him already light years ahead of Bush in perception of competence; and McCain was the only and first one saying we didnt have enough troops years before anyone else, D or R, said so - McCain may take a hit for being ID'd with the Bush on the war, but he has been criticizing the strategy the whole time, too...seems astute and competent enough to me, or at least plausible.
Also, one other big problem if the Dems do succeed in their withdrawl: the aftermath. As much as many do really want us to bug out now, I think people will sing a different tune when we leave and a few things are certain to happen: MASS MASS genocide, making the horrendous carnage going on now look like a frickin' day at the beach. We leave quickly, and that happens, Americans will not be able to stomach that kind of slaughter (and a slaughter there will be), and the ones who get the blame will probably be the ones who forced the pull out. Also, as much as people crow about Iran not really being a threat, or a seriosu threat, or being that close to nukes, or even that big a problem with nukes...when they take over Iraq after we leave, when they have no geographic barrier to merging with their buddies in Syria, when they control 40 percent of the world's oil, when they threaten America daily and to the degree that current threats from Ahmadinijad will seem like he is asking for a kiss, when a likely regional conflagration starts up, most likley involving Saudi Arabia and Iran, when that happens...Americans will not be happy campers. Oh, and they'll be just peachy when we have to go BACK to the region with even bigger problems.
And, yes, yes, yes, I know...its all George Bush's fault that we are there in the first place...problem is, you won't have ole Georgie to kick around any more...
Posted by: MJS at Mar 18, 2007 8:25:15 PM
I think Fred Thompson has a decent chance to get the Rep nomination and could rally the most Republican money of anyone, but Giuliani has the best chance to win the presidency so I think Reps will come around to him.
Posted by: Paul N at Mar 18, 2007 9:42:19 PM
With all the whisperings and weight loss, I wouldn't be too surprised to see Al Gore jump into the race in the next 6-8 months (and I certainly didn't feel that way a year ago...)
Waiting for the Hillary/Obama buzz trains to lose their steam (can't do 2 years of it) makes a LOT of sense, and Gore could take his momentum all the way to a primary win.
I would hope he would pick up my guy for vp, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. WOuld balance the ticket off nice.
I think Romney can get over the Mormon thing, but the lack of foreign policy experience will be damaging. Giuliani obviously will get the foreign policy support (despite the fact he has no foreign policy experience either) because of his leadership and tenacity, but we shall see.
Posted by: Christopher Prottas at Mar 18, 2007 10:17:58 PM
Americans are made of fine "mettle." At least the less well off are--they are fighting the existential fight Republicans claim is at hand. The wealthy are at the mall spending their tax cuts. The problem is failure of leadership--our commander in chief, rather than rally us to the task, suggested that we go shop.
This may not have mattered had Bush managed to get anyone capable of successfully executing policy once elected. Sadly, he was too busy giving jobs to incompetent boobs because they contributed to his campaign or had the correct vision of government as "the problem." This was especially true in Iraq, where they handed reconstruction of a conquered and occupied state to a bunch of ideologically pure 24-year-olds who loved markets but couldn't manage a successful beer run to the local 7-11.
Republicans will suffer from this policy not only because of the sense of corruption Americans feel about them now (which Rudy Giuliani, of all people, is least well positioned to dispel), but because they are so thoroughly incompetent--I challenge anyone to name a single GOP or neoconservative operative or thinker who has made a single correct prediction about how this war would come out. And yet none of the morons who got us into this mess have been canned.
Americans are beginning to get it--and the GOP only makes it worse by allowing the Kagans and the Perles and Cheneys to keep talking. Every time Dick Cheney says that things are getting better in Iraq he makes the GOP look more incompetent and delusional.
But no more delusional than anyone who thinks Rudy Giuliani has the remotest chance in hell of becoming President. Please, GOP primary voters, nominate Rudy. Make my day.
Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at Mar 18, 2007 10:46:41 PM
Its too early. The perception is that Giuliani could never make it through the primaries. I don't know if that is true, but given the perception there will be at least one more (probably a few) additions to the lineup who believe that McCain is disliked, Giuliani too far left and Romney also out(whether because he's Morman which I don't see as an issue or because of his atrocious healthcare plan and other leftwing ideas) for the primaries, so they see an opening.
Some possibilities uinclude Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul. Many people would see these two as problematic for the general - Newt because of his broken marriages and possibly his perception as out of the mainstream (?) I don't know, and Ron Paul probably for being unknown and a congressmen and probably for having some "wacky" ideas. How either of these would do against Hillary, I don't know.
Likely several more will come out of the woodwork, test the waters and one will stick.
Posted by: liberty at Mar 19, 2007 9:24:16 AM
It is incredibly far out to make predictions, but I think one can be made with certainty. Anyone with less likely right now than Dennis Kucinich will not win - and that rule excludes Ron Paul.
Posted by: theCoach at Mar 19, 2007 10:18:54 AM
Very good analysis, but the last point conflicts with the first point. Obama benefits from a shortened primary season just as Giuliani does.
Posted by: sourcreamus at Mar 19, 2007 12:52:47 PM
You could also argue Hillary does... it all depends on who it goes worst for, anyone could benefit because all candidates suffer during a long and rough primary season.
Posted by: liberty at Mar 19, 2007 12:57:16 PM
I like Barack Obama.
I think he faces several challenges, but I also like him. I think he's honest, and I like that. I think he wants to do the right thing, and I like that. I think he has few if any back-scratching debts on his history, and I like that. (Some people call that "lack of experience".)
Occasionally, I hear him say things that are worrisome. But before he started his look into candidacy, he never said anything that scared me. So I think he's saying these things just to get the Democratic vote, and doesn't actually believe them.
And I'm okay with that; as a Republican, I've always thought it was okay when we lied to Democrats so they'd vote how we wanted. Just like I was okay with Bush bending and twisting things a bit to get the Iraq war through, I'm okay with Obama bending and twisting things a bit to get onto the ticket.
Posted by: Caliban Darklock at Mar 19, 2007 1:24:26 PM
You like that he's honest, but you're okay with him lying. I hope you're kidding.
Posted by: liberty at Mar 19, 2007 1:29:57 PM
I think that Obama faces to many challenges. Overall with the candidates that the Democratic party have I think it would be difficult for them to win even though it should be an easy election for them. No one likes Hillary Clinton as a person so that will not go far. Our country needs someone whose politics are in between conservative and liberal.
Posted by: Anonymous at Mar 19, 2007 10:47:01 PM
free gay gallery archive gang bang slave thumbs http://uk.geocities.com/gay791gay/free-gay-gallery-archive-gang-bang-slave-thumbs.htm
[url=http://uk.geocities.com/cute963picture/naked-gays-fetish.htm]naked gays fetish[/url]
<a href="http://uk.geocities.com/models183men/dad-spanking-his-son.htm">dad spanking his son</a>
Posted by: emdebmeyfg at Mar 20, 2007 6:59:58 AM
<a href="http://hometown.aol.com/young93437797/adult-video-games-free-xxx.htm">adult video games free xxx</a>
Posted by: lngfcrzypy at Mar 20, 2007 7:00:25 AM
[url=http://hometown.aol.com/teeny25165675/norton-antivirus-free-trial-download.htm]norton antivirus free trial download[/url]
Posted by: jqrmguexif at Mar 20, 2007 7:00:47 AM
side effects of fahrenheit diet pill
Posted by: iodcvvxsno at Mar 20, 2007 7:01:00 AM
Fred Thompson, if he can get the party's nomination, will be the runaway winner. He's on Law and Order! People love that show!
We should be happy that most entertainment celebrities seem to be content with making gazillions of dollars rather than entering the political arena. Otherwise we'd be playing "Hail To The Chief" for President Spears.
Posted by: eddie at Mar 20, 2007 11:45:06 AM
With California moving its primary up to february 5 (signed into law last thursday), both parties' nomination races could be truncated dramatically.
the logic for Democratic activists and donors is to winnow the field rapidly during the "invisible primary" season preceding the first actual voting events. But with two relatively strong front-runners in H. Clinton and Obama, the prospects of a contested nominating convention are deliciously apparent.
I could imagine Hillary and Barack slugging it out to a virtual draw in January and February, which could allow an Edwards to limp along and survive until the convention as a third alternative.
If neither Hillary nor Barack can get a knock out win in February, then I think the prez contest is winnable for the Republicans because the Dems would be stabbing each other for months rather than rallying around the "All Republicans are George W. Bush" mantra.
But, by the same token, the Republicans could face a contested nomination with McCain, Guiliani and Romney. Personally, I can't imagine Guiliani winning the nomination.
If both parties' nominations go to contested conventions (pleeeeeease!!!! that would rock!), I can't really see the Democrats losing the general election without a miracle in Iraq in the next 12-15 months.
Posted by: brianS at Mar 20, 2007 2:05:53 PM
if some moron gets into the whitehouse like hillary or obama or guilliani (i spelled that wrong, i know) we should all as a nation march on washington, its now or never people take your freedom and start a revolution!!! (weight loss)
Posted by: mike at May 23, 2007 10:56:17 AM
大家好，我是臺灣人，從臺灣一個人搬家來到美國，環境很陌生，感覺很孤單。以前在臺灣幾家知名的徵信社工作過，我是一個優秀的徵信工作者，希望早點找到適合自己的工作。希望通過貴站，認識更多的朋友。
Posted by: 謝文豪 at Apr 1, 2008 11:29:52 PM
