« Have median wages stagnated? | Main | Uh oh »
Is Hillary electable?
If you believe that an uninformed opinion can be useful for seeing through the chatter, read on...
At this point it is ridiculous to claim that Hillary cannot win, but her chances are overestimated. I apply what I call The Angry Ape Test to the candidates. Imagine each mimicking an angry ape, and ask how pretty or appealing the resulting picture is. Most swing voters perceive America as being at war and so they demand toughness. They demand An Angry Ape, if not at every moment in time, at least in principle. Most Americans don't find an angry Hillary to be a pleasant Hillary, whereas an angry, raging Giuliana fits his basic image. Americans claim not to be biased, but at their core they don't much like angry women; being female remains Hillary's biggest barrier, even when explicit prejudice is absent. Related prejudicial forces will keep Barack Obama from the presidency. Being black, he is supposed to sound reasonable and intelligent all the time. He is not allowed to mimic An Angry Ape. Americans want their first women President to be like Margaret Thatcher -- firm, no-nonsense schoolmarmish strength without much radiation of anger -- and they want their first black President to be like Colin Powell. We will allow "Magisterial" -- I'm too strong to need to throw a tantrum -- to trump Angry Ape, but Hillary can't play that card. Barack is too young, too inexperienced, and doesn't have the military record.
Mitt Romney also can't do The Angry Ape. This same hypothesis suggests McCain still has some chance, though obviously his path to the top is no longer clear, given his limited resources. He can at least do The Ape. This is the main reason why I still think Giuliani will win.
Under this theory foreign policy disasters, no matter who caused them, will help the Republican candidate. We will demand An Angrier Ape.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 24, 2007 at 01:03 PM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Bravo, a great analysis of what really decides elections.
Posted by: Tom Kelly at Oct 24, 2007 1:11:28 PM
I hope and pray you are wrong here.
Posted by: LSF at Oct 24, 2007 1:13:24 PM
Let's not say "Related prejudicial forces will keep Barack Obama from the presidency" when we can say "Barack is too young, too inexperienced, and doesn't have the military record."
The former is pretty much untestable -- no one goes on record as being biased.
The latter is sufficient reason for trailing Hillary at this point.
Posted by: John Kunze at Oct 24, 2007 1:32:01 PM
Who people vote for in a presidential election is based on a number of factors. The "Angry Ape" may be one of them, but it's obviously not exclusive.
I voted for Bush over Kerry, Gore over Bush, Bill Clinton twice, and for the elder Bush before that. I don't know whether that makes me a swing voter, but I think there's a war on, and I do demand toughness. That's why, barring some unforeseen circumstance, I will most likely vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008. I see her as the establishment candidate.
There are people out there claiming she's a socialist, etc. That's a crock. It's like the people claiming Bush is a fascist, and that he is sending soldiers to Iraq to get blown up for his own amusement. I am tired of listening to that kind of sludge, no matter who is dishing it out.
Posted by: John S. at Oct 24, 2007 1:40:33 PM
I recently has a former boss come across the room at a lunch to tell me he was voting for Hillary and it would be the first time in his life he ever voted for a democrat. He is so conservative he thinks the navy should bring back keel hauling. He said she may be an amoral bitch, but at least she is a competent amoral bitch. He is just sick and tired of republican incompetence and thinks all the republican candidates are just as incompetent as Bush.
Why is this fundamental issue of competence never brought into the election analysis.
Posted by: spencer at Oct 24, 2007 1:41:54 PM
Hillary knows how to fight dirty in a campaign. That is the key. Gore and Kerry lost because they didn't know how to fight back, fight hard, and cut the legs out from under the opponent. Hillary is sophisticated and ruthless. Plus she has a huge advantage being a Democrat, people don't want another Republican president.
If Giuliani is the nominee, there will be a third-party anti-abortion candidate who will take votes away from the Republicans, ensuring a Hillary victory.
Romney is no match for Hillary.
Posted by: KenF at Oct 24, 2007 1:45:06 PM
So going off your theory of a positive (just in a horribly negative way) feedback loop of foreign policy disasters and Republican presidents, when can we expect the nuking of Iran to begin?
Posted by: John Payne at Oct 24, 2007 2:06:08 PM
So can we eventually expect an angry ape to be our president? I'd seriously consider voting for an actual ape.
Word to Payne above.
Posted by: Kevin V at Oct 24, 2007 2:14:04 PM
The biggest personal negative for Hillary is that she is perceived to be calculating and ruthless - but that's just the sort of person who can deal with the Middle East without getting angry. I think the sense of crisis in foreign policy helps her, turning her biggest liability (a cold, cynical personality) into an asset.
Posted by: Jim Barnett at Oct 24, 2007 2:23:32 PM
Aren't the traditional determinants of voting incumbency, party affiliation, image, and issues (in that order)?
If that's the case, #1 isn't at issue, #2 would rule slightly against the Republicans due to the "backlash" (or pendulum) that seems to be in effect, #3 I'd argue is a stalemate because none of the candidates appear all that great, and #4 also rules in favor of the Dems because of #2 and the likelihood of a third party libertarian/conservative candidate.
Posted by: Jarick at Oct 24, 2007 2:24:54 PM
Question for the pro-government crowd, do you all find any of these candidates attractive? Do you really think any of these people will on net improve the lot of society? If no, then why maintain the faith in government action?
Posted by: John Pertz at Oct 24, 2007 2:38:39 PM
"Most swing voters perceive America as being at war and so they demand toughness." Do you have a source for that? Or did you just make it up?
Also, how do you explain the predictive markets that have Hillary as the huge favorite? Will you put your money where your mouth is?
http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/presidential/
Posted by: at Oct 24, 2007 2:39:10 PM
People will begrudgingly vote for Hillary. Not because they necessarily like her, but because there's no good alternative candidate, and with the Iraq war dragging on with no end in sight and Oprah making a fuss about health care, people don't have feel they have the luxury of apathy this time around.
Posted by: aerith099 at Oct 24, 2007 3:27:59 PM
Given the latest quotes over at Intrade.com they're waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is. Hillary is currently trading at 70...
Posted by: JBJ at Oct 24, 2007 3:37:08 PM
I want to see a study about which Democrat will cause the most Republican voters to actually vote. I bet this would vary. I would guess that Republicans loathe Hillary so much that the ones who wouldn't normally bother to vote would actually drive to the polls in numbers large enough to swing a couple of close states. There has to be some elasticity in the number of voters who are willing to put forth the effort to vote within a given party based on the opposition's candidate.
Posted by: Dave at Oct 24, 2007 3:42:34 PM
While it is true that personal anectdotes mean nothing, whether they love her, hate her, or just tolerate her, every person I know who has an opinion has said something along the lines of Hillary Clinton being quite capable of acting like Margaret Thatcher. I am surprised that you don't, Tyler.
Posted by: RW Rogers at Oct 24, 2007 4:08:41 PM
But Romney has the best hair.
Posted by: Izzy at Oct 24, 2007 4:37:34 PM
Um, any evidence whatsoever for such an idea beyond amateur psychology and your application of it to the US populace? Just curious.
I really can't stand Hillary, but now I almost hope she can win just to discredit such ridiculous speculations. Or is this just your parody of Naomi Klein, i.e. you are trying to do with politics what she did with economics?
But I guess this is just a blog post...
Posted by: chukuang at Oct 24, 2007 5:03:15 PM
Why do you refer to the male candidates by their last names and the female candidate by her first name? Just curious.
Posted by: o at Oct 24, 2007 5:06:23 PM
I think he did it because There is a famous Bill Clinton, and first names like John are common, while it is weird to type names like "Mitt" or "Rudy."
I would have to agree with the competence poster. The incompetence of this administration is so great that I don't want to risk some of it remaining if power is kept within the party. I am worried a democratic President and Congress could simply pull all the troops out the day after the new president takes office, leading to a (more) failed state.
However, I am much more terrified that some other republican wingnut could pick up where Bush left off and somehow pick a fight with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venzuela and Cuba while pulling funding for foriegn aid that teaches family planning and re-covering the boobs of statues in the Department of Justice.
Posted by: Bill at Oct 24, 2007 5:19:35 PM
because there are no other Guilianis, Obamas, or Romneys that have recently been President. Just a guess
Posted by: p at Oct 24, 2007 5:25:41 PM
Is Hillary electable? No.
Posted by: Max at Oct 24, 2007 5:28:25 PM
Totally and utterly asinine.
Posted by: gaibdewplo at Oct 24, 2007 5:39:19 PM
I read some crazy science fiction book last year. It was set a 100 or 200 years out, with WWIII still waging (by then explicitly a religious war). In the opening scenes included the western alliance aircraft carrier "Hillary Clinton." Some words were mumbled about her as a committed War President. That was SciFi, but it seems somehow plausible, given the right sequence of events ...
What (I think) we want is an internationalist who can reintegrate US interests with the broader industrial world ... but I'm at odds with the new, anti-intellectual, conservative tradition. Maybe Hillary could do that with the right sequence of events, but then so again might Rudy.
Posted by: Odograph at Oct 24, 2007 6:48:11 PM
I agree that US voters would prefer a Thatcher-like woman or a Powell-like black as President, who wouldn't.
On the other hand if Obama lacks experience then so does Hillary. She has been in the Senate for only seven years. Prior to that she had not held elective office. She has never held executive office. She has little experience of working in the private sector. Most of her work experience has been in political activism. Her one serious go at significant policy development was an abject failure.
On this basis her qualifications for the Presidency look decidedly thin. Her only objective claims to the job are (1) she is not a Bush; and (2) she is not a Republican. I can think of no serious candidate for President/Prime Minister of a major economy who has a worse CV.
Posted by: Jeffrey Rae at Oct 24, 2007 8:25:09 PM
Interesting - according to Intrade, Hillary has about a 68% chance of winning the general election if she is nominated. This is much better than B. Obama's 54%, but the most favored candidate is an unlikely one - Al Gore has a whopping 86% chance of winning if nominated! (Though none of these people seem like angry apes to me)
On the Republican side, the most likely candidate is Ron Paul, with odds of a little over 50% (if he's nominated). Giuliani comes in around 40%. If the Angry Ape theory is true, there may be some mispricing in the prediction markets. Time to make some money in the name of science!
Posted by: Marco LoConte at Oct 24, 2007 8:29:49 PM
How about Ron Paul as An Angry Ape?
Posted by: Nate at Oct 24, 2007 8:34:16 PM
If the Angry Ape Theory is correct -- and I am horribly afraid that it might be -- then Al Gore would have no real chance, because he represents a sane, intelligent, visionary, competent, ethical approach to national leadership. When have we ever elected that candidate? I mean, other than Presidents Stevenson, Smith, and Mondale. (I always thought that it was not Reagan's sunniness, but his anger, that won it for him.)
Posted by: rm at Oct 24, 2007 8:54:50 PM
We are at war, but a war people don't want fight, they want out, and Hillary, has a better chance of extricating us from Iraq than another angry ape like Rudy.
Posted by: joan at Oct 24, 2007 9:42:24 PM
Kerry and Gore were nice guys. We know what happens to nice guys. Hillary isn't nice. She might be the only dem I can think of who can take on the Republican sludge machine and win.
Posted by: B at Oct 24, 2007 9:57:28 PM
Nobody votes FOR someone. They vote AGAINST a candidate. Thus Hillary is unelectable.
Posted by: Russ Nelson at Oct 24, 2007 11:55:11 PM
Hillary won’t win, and I’ll tell you why. If there is one immutable fact in America today, it is that the majority of people being sufficiently superficial and non-critical won’t vote for someone they don’t like. We are 12 1/2 months(!) away from the real election, and HRC has the spotlight sewed up for all that time. If there is one thing we know about Hillary, NO ONE LIKES HER! Not her husband, not her friends, not her colleagues, not the journalists that cover her, not anyone that has ever met her. At best, people tolerate her for some secondary gain.
Now imagine her sour puss barking at you every day for the next 13 months, tellin’ you why she is superior to you, there’s something wrong with you if you don’t agree with her, and by the way, give me your money. People will be looking for ways to avoid hearing her by the end.
She is already prone to gaffes, frightening hysterics, hyperbole, corruption, and cackling. Plus her default personality is condescension. Imagine your most annoying acquaintance living with you for the next 13 months! There is no way that she is not going to expose herself (rhetorically) dozens of times while under pressure, and offer up MULTIPLE “voted for it before I voted against it” moments. The kicker is that 45-50% of people already have said that they wouldn’t vote for her under any circumstances.
That’s what Hillary is fighting against in this 24-hour-but-30-second-sound-bite media. Even to the degree that she controls the Media hegemon and her rockstar husband, there is no media monopoly anymore, and the real Hillary will come out, and the MSM will have to show it. The bottom line is that she has failed in everything she has ever done without Bill’s coattails. At some point, people are going to say, “Bill’s not running, she is; and, I can’t stand to listen to this b*tch for the next 4-8 years!”
Posted by: Joe C. at Oct 25, 2007 6:54:05 AM
Joe C, Thanks for a comment that makes sense.
"The biggest personal negative for Hillary is that she is perceived to be calculating and ruthless - but that's just the sort of person who can deal with the Middle East without getting angry."
This would only be good if she were on our side. I see no evidence of that yet.
Posted by: Tom at Oct 25, 2007 8:41:30 AM
"then Al Gore would have no real chance, because he represents a sane, intelligent, visionary, competent, ethical approach to national leadership."
Oh, please.
Posted by: DBrooks at Oct 25, 2007 8:47:54 AM
"Most swing voters perceive America as being at war and so they demand toughness."
Isn't this an empirical claim that, if incorrect, entirely invalidates the analysis?
Posted by: Arr-squared at Oct 25, 2007 10:23:50 AM
Agreed that this is an asinine post. In terms of election theory, I think the Wacky Dolphin and the Shy Woodpecker are much more predictive than the Angry Ape. I can make up more theories if you'd like.
Posted by: Greg at Oct 25, 2007 11:11:07 AM
I agree with you. I think Hillary Clinton is a great candidate. She is extremely tough and is well respected by our nation. There is one problem however and that is that she is a female. I do not believe that this country is ready for a female president. In not only our country, but other countries will not give us respect with a woman leading us. Other countries will not take us serious if Hillary is our president. Even though she might be the best candidate, our nation will not see that. They will see her as a woman and that there is no possible way that she can lead our nation. She is a great candidate and a far more worthy candidate then her husband. Her husband accomplished a lot. I believe that Hillary can accomplish much more. Barack Obama is also a worthy candidate. With so much diversity in the upcoming election, it is going to be interesting to see who wins. There is one thing certain and that is this country is going in a diverse direction and a candidate will be chosen that our ancestors would have never imagined. This candidate will lead our country.
Posted by: Derek Keener at Oct 25, 2007 11:38:26 AM
The (s)elections are more like a game of "rock, paper, scissors." The republicans can beat Hillary because they've spent so much time demonizing her since she was the First Lady back in 92. Rudy could beat Hillary because she's hated so much that even when the taliban wing of the republican party "votes Nader" to punish that pro-choice adulterer, HillaryHatred will drive the republicans to drive out to vote. For an illustration of this, one should remember the previous "Hillary for President" campaigns have all been run by and for republicans in order to scare other republicans into contributing money.
I just finished explaining to one of my co-workers who thinks she sounds "progressive;" that her progressive issues could never get through any conceivable congress. And her issues that could get through any congress that we're likely to see are the ones that mark her as indistinguishable from a republican.
In general, presidential candidates start from a neutral stance on the like/dislike continuum. Hillary is coming from so far down the "dislike" end of the scale that the word "hate" is more appropriate. I don't see that hatred being overcome by anything less than a multi-billion dollar advertising campaign.
I think that your Angry Ape Test is very appropriate. This campaign season seems to be arranged around "who hates Iran more." Reading the transcripts of some of the republican debates makes it sound like a chest-beating contest: "I'll nuke Iran!" followed by "I'll nuke Iran harder!' followed by "I'll nuke them till they glow, then shoot them in the dark" ending up with something like "I can nuke that country in two notes!"
Is she electable? No. I've voted D ever since making the mistake of voting for Reagan in 1980. "ABC" (anybody but carter) was the national theme at the time. Anderson would have been a better president, but Reagan did a very good "angry ape" at that time. I used to be angry at the dems who voted for Nader in 2000 for helping the bush cabal into office. I now understand why they did so, and if Hillary is the candidate, I'll "vote Nader" this time. As far as I'm concerned, she's effectively become a republican.
Getting back to RPS: even though Rudy is a one-trick-pony (how often can you put 911 in a sentence?), he can defeat Hillary. He couldn't beat Obama. Therefore, the MSM will continue to portray Hillary as if she already has the Democrat nomination.
My prediction: who ever "wins" the 2008 (s)elections will last one term in office. They will be utterly despised for "losing" the Iraq war that they'll be hated as "this generation's Jimmy Carter." The bush loyalists will continue to claim for decades to come "we were winning until *that person* was elected, and *they* stabbed us in the back."
Posted by: Peter at Oct 25, 2007 12:02:07 PM
I agree that Hillary is the establishment candidate. I don't think she's a great candidate though for precisely those reasons that Jeffrey Rae and Joe C. described. If she was not Bill's wife, she wouldn't even have achieved the success she has. She's undoubtedly smart and tough, but people can be that and still be utter failures at politics. She does have the potential to be a good leader, but potential is not good enough when the office is the Presidency. Some of the posts above praising Hillary are not based on evidence, but hope and desire. That's a recipe for disappointment. I can't believe people are so cavalier about this - but the Republicans were cavaliar about nominating a governor from a weak executive state with a history of personal failures, so I guess the Democrats think precedent has been set.
Plus the dynastic angle troubles me immensely. If she wins, from 1988-2012 (over twenty years) we'll have a President from only two families. That is incredibly bad for a democracy.
8 years of incompetence are enough, and I desire the Furies to roast the GOP. But there are only three candidates with impressive resume of achievements - Rudy Giulani, Mitt Romney, and Bill Richardson. Each has faults, but they are far better than anyone else running.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at Oct 25, 2007 12:28:23 PM
I picture Tyler Cowan as a Rhesus monkey in a little diaper. All trembly and wet and smelling a bit off.
Posted by: Organ Grinder at Oct 25, 2007 12:53:23 PM
Ha. Reminds me of this (although that's a knock on Republicans than on general election candidates).
Anyways, what's with the recent trend in trying to describe human behavior with apes/monkeys?
Posted by: mitch at Oct 25, 2007 1:26:51 PM
I bet Bill has some good pictures of angry Hillary. Er, mental pictures, but scary nonetheless.
Posted by: Rich Berger at Oct 25, 2007 3:26:10 PM
I do believe you will be proven wrong and Obama wins
Posted by: Haste at Oct 25, 2007 4:04:33 PM
"Barack is too young, too inexperienced, and doesn't have the military record."
This supposes that the country has reacted violently to the very features that accompanied the incumbent into office. Even if you don't buy the 2000 election as won by Bush, at a bare minimum this simplistic rule should have, but didn't preclude him.
Posted by: Walt French at Oct 25, 2007 6:04:33 PM
Competence candidates have historically done pretty poorly. Both Dukakis and Dole ran as competence candidates and were beaten easily.
I think Tyler's predictions are good ones, the problem with trying to predict swing voter's behavior is that if they cared or were informed about politics, they wouldn't be swing voters. Thus to try to predict their behavior the less information you have about the candidates, the better/
Posted by: sourcreamus at Oct 26, 2007 3:32:55 PM
"Other countries will not take us serious if Hillary is our president."
You mean other countries would take you less seriously than with George W. Bush as the president? ;)
Posted by: Kaj Sotala at Oct 26, 2007 5:15:50 PM
Actually, I think Gore seems somewhat plausible as an "Angry Ape". And please note, he won the majority vote in 2000, so commenters "B" and "RM" are quite off base because they're attempting to use the Angry Ape theory to show why he lost. But the relevant metric here is the popular vote, and he didn't lose.
Gore hasn't done much (either during the 2000 campaign or since) to foster an Angry Ape image, but please recall his occasional unhinged seeming rant about Bush. There's some anger there, although I can't say how ape-like it is. And who can forget this passage from Richard Clarke's book:
"The first time I proposed [an extraordinary rendition], in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."
Not that we saw much of that attitude during his campaign, but I think voters still drew a conclusion that Gore was at least as much of an Angry Ape as Bush - who ran in 2000 as that un-angry and un-ape like creature, a Compassionate Conservative. And - in line with the theory - he won the popular vote.
(Kerry, incidentally, said during the 2004 campaign that he didn't support capital punishment because it wasn't cruel enough. You might argue that this was an attempt to show his Angry Ape credentials, but if so, I don't think many people took it seriously.)
As far as the 2008 election goes...I think Hillary will get a pass. She may not do "angry" well, but I think she can do "cold-blooded and vindictive", and that's close enough. Ask yourself this - which of the Democratic candidates would you least like to have extremely mad at you? I can't really imagine any of them hauling off and hitting me, but I could imagine Hillary having my brake lines cut...
On the Republican side, the best candidate would be Thompson, for reasons which are obvious.
Posted by: Cody at Oct 29, 2007 9:36:37 AM
I'm still amazed that we have the biggest conspiracy since Kennedy, and the white house isn't in flames .....i like the idea of going back to the constitution, as IT IS WRITTEN,...other wise, i can govern myself, thank you....i have never once lost 80billion anything...and if bush admin, wanted to go to war sooo bad........annex mexico...it is closer, it makes more sense, and mexico, by default, is attacking us anyway....
Posted by: tucker at Oct 30, 2007 7:05:11 PM
Hi Best wishes。Allow me to offer my heartiest wishes.xicao loves-流水线娱乐博客常年提供高、中、低压锅炉钢管、流体钢管、结构钢管、化肥专用钢管、石油裂化钢管、地质钢管、液压支柱钢管及合金钢管-无缝管-无缝钢管等利用同声传译设备来论文发表资讯/刊物信息，协助客户制定论文发表方案
Posted by: xicao at Nov 15, 2007 2:36:37 AM
Posted by: 翻译公司 at Feb 13, 2008 9:32:51 AM
hi,I University majoring in the legal profession.After graduation,I 徵信 the work of the strong interest.Has worked in several徵信社.Has a wealth of experience. Now I immigrants France,Hope to continue to engage in the work of徵信 credit.
now,is to wake up every day to drink 咖啡, shopping. I hope that early awareness of Boles.
thanks,thank very much.
Posted by: Bob at Mar 14, 2008 1:14:30 AM
Very nice article! Thanks for this!
Posted by: 二宮沙樹 at Jul 28, 2008 7:41:53 AM
