« Lane Kenworthy's blog | Main | Who has the best fiscal stimulus plan? »
Keeping your eye on the electoral ball
I have some tips for keeping track of who is most likely to win a presidential election. You all know about the prediction markets, here are a few other mental categories which I find useful. There is real evidence for them, but I can't pretend they all command a consensus in the political science literature. I do, however, think they are true, in part because they are consistent with my underlying views of human behavior:
1. People tend to overreact to the news of the moment in predicting a winner, don't make this mistake. Ultimately election outcomes are determined by the fundamentals of the comparison. For instance if you wish to argue that Hillary Clinton will still be the Democratic nominee, just ponder all those Latinos and blue collar workers out there. They're not responding to most of the cues analyzed by the net roots bloggers. For any forecast you make, imagine yourself telling it to the guy sitting next to you at the West Virginia K-Mart, and see if it passes his laugh test.
2. Party disunity predicts an electoral loss; if you are a Democrat you should worry about this. It remains to be seen how deep the Republican squabbles will run. Read the work on Martin P. Wattenberg on this question, of course party disunity can either be a cause of loss or a symptom of other problems. The state of the party (just like market prices) also aggregates information.
3. The swing voters in the American citizenry don't really trust the Democrats with foreign policy and won't anytime soon, whether this is rational or not. Signs that the election will center around the economy help the Democrats. Signs that the economy will focus on foreign policy help the Republicans.
4. When a woman or an African-American or a former first Lady is running for President, that is a huge issue in the minds of voters, whether anyone admits it or not.
There is reasonable though not decisive academic evidence for points #2 and #3. #4 is of course a wildcard, and #1 I have never seen tested; a study might find mean-reversion in the betting markets, I do not know. Based on this list, I am still thinking that most people are underestimating the chances of a Republican President (the ascendancy of John McCain is starting to reverse this tendency), noting that #2 and #4 are working for my view, but #3 is working against it, at least at the moment.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 15, 2008 at 11:35 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Dear Tyler,
You know I gain from your insights and links to interesting stuff. Here's my pet peeve. I'm trying to teach my students to be good writers as well as thinkers. I like to point them to this web site. I would point them to it with even more enthusiasm if you didn't almost consistently make the grammatic mistake of using commas when colons or semi-colons are required. Commas DO NOT separate clauses. Check out your second sentence of your first paragraph and the first sentence of your first bullet.
Best,
David
Posted by: David R. Henderson at Jan 15, 2008 12:08:02 PM
How does #3 fit in to 2006? Same wit #2 I suppose? The Demcorats actually seem quite unified to me. The arguments now are about style, not substance.
Posted by: Joel W at Jan 15, 2008 12:11:31 PM
With all due respect, it seems that your Hilary-Electable post falls into the same trap of Mistake #1.
Posted by: Ylight at Jan 15, 2008 12:25:47 PM
David,
Tyler's writing just demonstrates that clear communication is roughly a billion times more important in writing than adhering to the infallible laws of punctuation. Maybe that would be good for your students to learn.
Posted by: josh at Jan 15, 2008 12:26:31 PM
josh and David,
I noticed the comma problem too.
Posted by: Alan Coffey at Jan 15, 2008 12:30:09 PM
#6 When conservatives are dissatisfied with the GOP, Republicans lose.
(Mr. Henderson, thank you for the semi-colon lesson.)
Posted by: Leslie Carbone at Jan 15, 2008 12:51:36 PM
What is noteworthy about David Henderson's point is that, instead of being merely a stylistic quibble, he is actually right that Tyler's comma usage violates the rules of English grammar -- not French, though, I believe.
Posted by: MM at Jan 15, 2008 1:08:33 PM
This is from the Baltimore Sun:
"British writers are addicted to a practice that causes American grammarians to recoil in horror: They link independent clauses with a comma. In Britannia, the comma-splice run-on sentence causes no shrieks of dread. Neither, increasingly, does it on these shores.
But for the squeamish, She punctuates properly, it’s no great feat begs to be corrected. With a coordinating conjunction — She punctuates properly, and it’s no great feat — or with a semicolon — She punctuates properly; it’s no great feat.
But the semicolon has fallen out of popularity, neglected, ignored, even shunned. Oh, you can occasionally compel writers to resort to it in a complex series, but in general they shy away from it like a vegan at a bull roast. This reluctance may have something to do with the pronounced American preference for informality: "No semicolons here, dude; we left them behind in Europe, just like we junked aristocracy and teaching Latin to schoolchildren and dressing like adults."
It’s a pity. The semicolon is still useful for sentences that involve complex, what do you call them, thoughts.
Nicholson Baker gives the semicolon its due in "The History of Punctuation," a review essay of a book on that subject from The New York Review of Books, reprinted in The Size of Thoughts. He even devotes some admiring space to the 19th-century penchant for combining the semicolon with the dash. (Semicolons combined with dashes! A guilty pleasure, like Strasbourg pate.)
But those palmy days are gone for good; the semicolon survives, but in an attenuated state, preserved temporarily from extinction by that dwindling band of writers and editors who also struggle to breathe a little life back into whom."
There is also a small literature on how the semi-colon is proving much less popular on the web. But I will try to be more traditional from now on.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Jan 15, 2008 1:14:13 PM
In point 1 appears:
"For instance if you wish to argue that Hillary Clinton will still be the Democratic nominee, just ponder all those Latinos and blue collar workers out there."
I assume you give those votes to Edwards rather than Obama or Kucinic.
As to latinos, there is great tension in various states between the latino community and the black community which militates against a large percentage of latinos going for Obama. On the other hand, I think latinos in general are less populist than Edwards which may count against voting at all or voting for Clinton.
As to blue collar workers, I don't think the majority of them who vote Democrat are ready for a black president. They are likely to eat up Edwards's populist drivel.
Posted by: Dennis Tuchler at Jan 15, 2008 2:27:04 PM
I wonder if it is possible (or illegal) to engage in what is effectively 'insider trading' in prediction markets. I don't keep track of them all that much, but could some high staffer at one of the presidential campaigns, for instance, short a prediction that their candidate would win and then leak some damaging info to the media? Or, could they sell out of long positions with the knowledge that the campaign would be hurt soon?
Posted by: effay at Jan 15, 2008 3:55:44 PM
The Republicans seem far more disunified than the Democrats. The Dem candidates seem to be putting forward the same program, with just different faces. All the Republican candidates seem to upset at least one important segment of the Republican coalition (except Thompson, who is just lazy).
Posted by: TGGP at Jan 15, 2008 5:27:00 PM
So now that you've mentioned my home state I'm curious -- is it on your voluminous list of travels? What are your favorite things West Virginia?
Posted by: Andromeda at Jan 15, 2008 5:50:53 PM
"The Republicans seem far more disunified than the Democrats. "
That's true in terms of policy and substance, as you note.
However, game theory suggests that having multiple contenders can actually be less damaging than having just two.
Attacking an opponent is beneficial in a 2 person race even if it hurts your own favorability ratings, as long as it hurts your opponent more. In contrast, when their are many opponents, attacking one of them (at your own expense) is likely to be a losing strategy.
Thus, if the Democratic race boils down to 2 candidates while 3 or more fight it out in the GOP, game theory would predict more negative and personal attacks between the Democratic candidates.
Of course, one or both may choose not to pursue this for some reason, but that's how the incentives would direct them. In turn, the winner would likely be more wounded going into the general election, even if there were no serious intra-party policy differences.
Posted by: A student of economics at Jan 15, 2008 11:02:52 PM
This reluctance may have something to do with the pronounced American preference for informality: "No semicolons here, dude; we left them behind in Europe, just like we junked aristocracy and teaching Latin to schoolchildren and dressing like adults."
Whatever. The dressing like adults thing is always a bit suspect -- but then the Europeans seem to understand which side of a comma to put a quotation mark "on", methinks.
Ultimately election outcomes are determined by the fundamentals of the comparison.
Ultimately, election outcomes are determined by the aggregate result of polarized issues -- primary, secondary, tertiary, ... all positions well chosen by preference to produce both the lowest fallout and the greatest complement of voters. If that's what you meant by "fundamentals of the comparison", I agree.
Posted by: SheetWise at Jan 15, 2008 11:28:13 PM
#1 - I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case, given that overrating recent information it's a classic mistake. Particularly so with the media, looking for things that are new and interesting. As a corollary, does anyone think the effects of recent 'real world' (as opposed to campaign) events are more important when candidates are not currently in office?
#2 - From a British perspective where divided Conservative party has been in trouble for a decade and a half, I instinctively agree with this. I often think the US caucuses are risky because of the damage they can do to candidates and parties - especially negative campaigning. However I do wonder if a disunited party is less of a problem if you follow the Clinton (1) strategy of deliberately distancing yourself from your party.
#3 & #4 I can't comment on so much, but #4 reminds me of a daily show report that black votes are actually only worth 2/3 of a white one, because every three black votes scares off one white voter...
ps. I found myself changing a separating comma to a semi-colon in an email I wrote just this morning.
Posted by: Tim at Jan 16, 2008 6:58:19 AM
This post is interesting in terms of heuristics, but I have issues with some of the embedded assumptions / logical shortcuts. I agree with #1 in general. However, I'm not sure why you assume that blue collar and Latino are anti-Clinton, when it seems that blue collar went her way in NH and that Latino is considered a strength by her campaign. Time will tell, I suppose.
I think #2 is an excellent point, but it remains to be seen which party is more disunified. The relatively even race on both sides will cause some serious headaches. Since I'm leaning towards Dems in this election, I'm glad to see them moving towards burying the hatchet.
For #3, I see your Angry Ape post as weak evidence. I think it crosses the line from speculation based on theory and and analysis to personal preference spun as analysis. Could you point us to some of the academic evidence you mention?
Posted by: Greg at Jan 16, 2008 7:15:19 AM
#3 has been true for a while, but it hasn't always been true. It remains to be seen if the Bush disaster was enough to get movement on this point. I believe that is at least part of the reason for optimism among Dems.
Posted by: mpowell at Jan 16, 2008 5:11:16 PM
I think Tyler is over-analyzing this. This simple algorithm should predict the nominees:
1. Eliminate any ugly candidates. (eliminates McCain and Guiliani)
2. Eliminate candidates who propose concrete ideas (eliminates Edwards and all the "fringe" candidates)
3. Eliminate candidates who are disliked by more than 30% of the electorate (eliminates Clinton)
So: Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will be the nominees. They're attractive and wishy-washy and likable, which seem to be the major qualifications for becoming president.
Posted by: Gavin at Jan 18, 2008 8:28:08 AM
Bvlgari Jewelry
Replica Bvlgari Jewelry
Bvlgari Replica Jewelry
Gucci Jewelry
Replica Gucci Jewelry
Posted by: aion kina at Mar 18, 2009 9:11:24 PM
