« 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
