Why Obama Won't Win But Romney Could Lose
Economic hard times bring political hard times for the party in power and that spells trouble for Barack Obama
By G. Terry Madonna & Michael L. Young
It’s known as Ockham’s razor.
Attributed to 14th-century philosopher William of Ockham, it advocates seeking the simplest explanation necessary to make sense of things. The popular acronym KISS captures its spirit—“keep it simple stupid.”
Alas, Ockham’s adage finds few takers today among contemporary electoral analysts. Amid the pundit literati predicting presidential elections, the slogan might be, “seek complexity, lots of it.”
This criticism applies particularly to the various and sundry “models” used by the “punditocracy” to predict who will win the next election. These models usually include dozens of variables using arcane statistics to make electoral predictions. Complex and convoluted, they use bazookas to hunt flies when a good, serviceable fly swatter works just as well.
But the even more serious problem with some of the presidential predictions models is that they ignore much of the enormous changes in the history of presidential elections since the end of World War II.
Not well understood is that American electoral history divides sharply into two very different eras. The first era now largely irrelevant to modern elections ranged from 1800-1945. During this period, one or the other of America’s two major political parties tended to dominate presidential elections, sometimes for decades at a time.
From 1800-1856, the Democrats dominated, winning 13 of 15 elections while opposition Whigs won only two. Then from 1860-1928, the Republicans had their turn, winning 18 elections while holding Democrats to just two presidents, each winning two terms. Finally, rounding out the string, the New Deal Democratic coalition garnered Democratic victories in five straight elections from 1932-1948.
Two things are significant about this 150-year stretch when one party held power for long intervals of time. One is that this century and a half of presidential elections inspired many of today’s complex predictive models. The other important fact is that this pattern ended abruptly in 1945.
With the accession of Harry Truman to the presidency, those long electoral winning streaks came to a screeching stop. Instead, since 1952 the country has witnessed some six decades of fierce but balanced two party competitions between the major parties. In that time we have had 10 presidents, five Democrats and five Republicans.
This roughly 60-year period has recorded the most unsettled and volatile presidential cycle in American history, witnessing the two parties regularly trading the presidency every eight years. The normal pattern is uncomplicated: Party A wins two terms in a row unless encountering major economic reversals in the first term (high unemployment, low economic growth, etc.). If major economic reversals occur in the first term, Party A doesn’t win a second term. In either event Party A almost never wins a third consecutive term.
There has been a single exception to this two-terms-and-out pattern. That exception occurred in 1988 when Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis lost to George H.W. Bush after squandering a one-time lead of 17 points. Many explain that aberration to Dukakis’s poor performance as a campaigner and weak campaign organization.
Applying this modern two-terms-and-out pattern to the 2012 race is not likely to bring a grin to Barack Obama. At best, 2012 looks perilous for him and his party. While a robust economy would probably ensure four more years for the Democrats, that’s precisely what they don’t have. And the one theme that runs through virtually all the prediction models is critical role of economic conditions.
Economic hard times bring political hard times for the party in power. That was true for incumbents Martin Van Buren (1840), and Herrbert Hoover (1932), and in more recent times Jimmy Carter (1980) and George H.W. Bush (1992). All lost their re-election contests. Obama now seems poised to follow these earlier presidents denied a second term because of a bad economy.
Can anything save Obama from the fate of his hard luck predecessors? Ironically the only person who might do it is his opponent Mitt Romney. And Romney could do it by running a weak campaign.
Former Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis has already showed him the way. In 1988 Governor Dukakis, against all odds, successfully snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The star-crossed Dukakis in his race against H.W. Bush, learned a painful lesson: no matter how promising the race looks, it is possible to lose if you run a bad enough campaign. Hoping that a second Massachusetts governor might duplicate that feat in 2012 is probably now Obama’s best shot at a second term.
GREG L
7:48 am on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Although I voted for Obama, I'm not currently a huge fan of the administration albeit for different reasons than those that are generally bantered about in the media. I suppose convention wisdom would suggest that a bad economy dooms his presidential aspirations, but in a way that that's also a indictment of the public's ability to analyze the basic causes for the economic situation--much of which was put in place by various administrations going all the way back to LBJ. While there's certainly stuff to truly beat Obama up on, the economy is not one of them as he inherited a bad situation that will take a period of time beyond his presidency--even if he's re-elected--to solve. So if he were to lose on this basis alone, we can be assured that the mess we're in will only get worst as the underlying causes will continue to go unacknowledged and unaddressed. This country is going down the tubes almost wholly due to "conventional wisdom's" failure to expand the analysis to truly pinpoint the causes for the political and economic crises we find ourselves in. So it's no wonder why the public would vote someone out of office for a cumulative situation that was inherited. They're getting no information that would inform them otherwise—one of the failings of conventional wisdom.
Rich Piotrowski
8:22 am on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Vote for Romney or Obama and we all lose. As for me I'll be voting for Gary Johnson as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insane.
brian
12:01 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
While I agree with your sentiments, but that would be a wasted vote. An Obama second term would clearly be disastrous for the country. 16 trillion in debt with no end in sight.
14% of Americans think that their children will be better off than their generation. I'd like to meet those 14%.
Rich Piotrowski
1:35 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Brian, at this point in time I can't believe anyone would fall for that same nonsensical line over and over and over and over again. Voting for either Bush 3 (Obama) or Bush 4 (Romney) is the TRUE wasted vote. BOTH are so often on the same side it would take me all day to list them. Stop voting for big Government and then we will stop getting big Government.
Melissa Schaffer
10:13 am on Sunday, July 29, 2012
TLDNR, this is all rhetoric until November 6th, its boring and tiresome, no matter who wins it is more of the same until a 3rd party is established with a legitimate chance at winning
Frank
10:28 am on Sunday, July 29, 2012
I'll stick with President Obama. Republicans (as a whole) make me sick.
Wayne Schissler
1:57 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Frank, it's always nice to hear a representative comment from the party of tolerance and anti-bigotry. Love ya, see you at Chick-fil-a (just not today)...
Paul Menard
2:46 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Wayne, when are you going to run for political office?
Wayne Schissler
3:08 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Paul,
I would have a very difficult time spending other people's money, seriously. At least at first, I'm sure it gets easier as time goes on - but I don't want to be that person.
Maybe after the Romney administration and a Republican led congress and senate show us that they are no better (just possibly a slower path to fiscal, moral, and social bankruptcy) --- Maybe then a responsible a 3rd party could emerge and govern without paying off constituencies with other peoples money. Maybe then someone not enthralled with doing good with other people's money could get elected.
Waiting for one of the parties already in power to become that party just doesn't seem to be happening...
GREG L
3:27 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
I must say that I'm rather surprised that Wayne Schissler is ready remove himself from the republican party. Perhaps I'm misreading him, In any event, there's a lot of other people's money involved well beyond Wayne's concerns about supposed welfare expansion that Obama is purportedly using to buy votes. Somehow the Citizen's United ruling goes unacknowledged---that falls under "free market" notions that are subscribed to by our friends on the right. In any event, a 3rd party will largely be ineffectual absent reform of the entire political system beginning with the graft and vote buying endemic to it
Andrew Wilt
3:27 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Pat Buchanan pretty much summed it up when he said, "Today, candor compels us to admit that our vaunted two-party system is a snare and a delusion, a fraud upon the nation. Our two parties have become nothing but two wings of the same bird of prey."
Wayne Schissler
3:56 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Hey Greg,
You're very good at misreading me! Beginning with the words about "supposed welfare expansion" that you feel free to stick in my mouth. Please don't do that!
I'm just as concerned about corporate welfare expansion, bailouts, too-big-to-fail, regulations that favor those TBTF established businesses and the unions they support, loan guarantees to bad business models, "stimulus" for shovel-ready jobs that did not exist, etc, etc,
GREG L
4:19 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Wayne, you did write this: "...... govern without paying off constituencies with other peoples money. Maybe then someone not enthralled with doing good with other people's money could get elected." which are in fact code words for Obama supposedly grabbing the public purse and buying votes. From prior discussions with you, it was reasonable to surmise that this was what you meant and your comments pretty much confirm this as you don't deny it, but add a few other items. that you have issue with. Sticking with welfare for the moment, please allow me to draw your attention to the fact that welfare spending amounts to a very small percentage of federal spending and, yes, there are certainly abuses but these amount to far less than those other areas of federal spending where dollars are wasted. Of course corporate welfare, bailouts of the TBTF banks and de-regulation are by far the largest contributing factors to the mess in which we find ourselves.
Wayne Schissler
4:44 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Greg said,
"which are in fact code words"
Greg, my words are exactly what my words are - they are not "code words". If you don't want to have a discussion with the words that I am actually putting here - that's your problem.
As for welfare payments, the best way to reduce welfare payment would be to have an economy that has more people working. Everything this administration (and previous ones!) has done has gone against that - and the corporate welfare & bailouts are a disaster. It hurts the poor, it doesn't help them.
Here, this 'splains it better than I can here:
http://mercatus.org/publication/beyond-bailouts-what-cronyism
I recently read the president's Roanoke speech ("you didn't build that!") - the whole thing. Beyond the silliness of the campaign rhetoric it was illuminating in other ways. His plan to "grow the economy from the middle" - have you examined that? It's a promise to not raise taxes on the middle class but to raise it for the rich. Can you explain how that grows, stimulates, or does anything for the economy? Is the amount of tax money that comes in some sort of magic elixir for the economy?
optimist
4:01 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Despite the shaky economy the President is sill in front in almost all of the swing states which is really all that matters. Romney's decision to keep opening his mouth, refusing to release his taxes, and his history of off shoring jobs gives Obama the advantage.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
This could turn around with the massive attack adds of the very wealthy GOP super PACS coming down the stretch. Should be interesting.
No Obama, No Romney 2012
4:48 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
had a conversation with a tea party fella who did not believe that the legendary Ronald Reagan raised taxes 7 out of 8 years in office, a couple of his cronies backed him up saying no way, seems that gathering of thinkers needs a history lesson
optimist
7:10 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Regan was a decent human being and moderate on some issues. Both things teapublians would not recognize today.
GREG L
10:50 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
>> His plan to "grow the economy from the middle" - have you examined that? It's a promise to not raise taxes on the middle class but to raise it for the rich. Can you explain how that grows, stimulates, or does anything for the economy? Is the amount of tax money that comes in some sort of magic elixir for the economy?<<<
For some of us, the season of gaffes and sound bites, commonly known as a presidential campaign, is not taken all that seriously and certainly not serious enough to evaluate any comments made as a fait accompli as far as policy is concerned. So in that sense, much of what either candidate says can be dismissed as empty rhetoric and many are so sick of this nonsense that the choice for many will be none of the above or a protest vote for one of the minor party candidates
GREG L
10:51 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
While we can dismiss talk, we can’t quite do that with policies that have been actually implemented and there is evidence abound of policy failure as has been authored by those on the right. Now I don’t exempt the left from blame as well, but since we’re talking about raising taxes on the rich, the corollary that must be considered as well is the efficacy of tax cuts that the rich have benefited from ---much of which has been authored by those on the right. The question is whether those cuts actually spurred economic growth or was that growth illusory being fueled by massive deficits and borrowing those tax cuts created. Well, the jury is in and so called supply side economics espoused as an article of faith by the T-Party has been a complete and utter failure and is the primary reason for the fiscal mess we’re currently in. So the question, Wayne, is whether the tax cuts have done anything other than create yawning deficits? As a matter of simple fairness, the Bush tax cuts that have benefited the wealthy need to be reversed and one of the problems some of us have with Obama was his wimping out on pushing for that.
Wayne Schissler
11:38 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Hey Greg,
"The Bush tax cuts" (The 2001 & 2003 acts which significantly lowered the marginal tax rates for nearly *all* U.S. taxpayers) you speak of became the Obama tax cuts when he signed the 2 year extension of them in December of 2010. I guess he did not receive the same memo you got about economics. Oh well...
Your "jury" on economics has found the reason for the mess we're in and there's nothing in it about the housing bubble, mortgage crisis, European sovereign debt crisis, etc... it's just the Bush (now Obama) tax cuts. Sure, right, OK, - whatever...
truth seeker
9:15 am on Monday, July 30, 2012
The Bush tax cuts were never meant to be permanent. The idea of letting them expire for the wealthiest Americans is a good one. Of course that brings the job creator argument into play. In the meantime corporate profits are at an all time high. What a joke.
GREG L
7:44 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
>>Your "jury" on economics has found the reason for the mess we're in and there's nothing in it about the housing bubble, mortgage crisis, European sovereign debt crisis, etc... it's just the Bush (now Obama) tax cuts. Sure, right, OK, - whatever..<<<
I wrote about the Bush tax cuts in response to your comment about whether a repeal of those cuts was an "elixir" for economic growth. I believe my point stands on the fact that the cuts failed to spur economic growth to begin with and that the only discernible result from the tax cut/supply side mantra emanating from the T-Party is their contribution to the deficits. Rather than respond to that, you've shifted ground and no doubt want to attribute the housing bubble, mortgage crisis and the sovereign debt crisis to "leftist" policies. But there's a wall of facts that has to be dealt with there as well. Everything can't be reduced down to slogans or Faux News talking points.
Wayne Schissler
8:20 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
Greg,
I answered your assertion for the "primary reason for the fiscal mess we’re currently in" by mentioning the factors that everyone points to as the trigger for the 2008 recession. Call it a shifting ground, my questioning the premise of your assertions, if you must!
The government's deficit effects the government's economy, Or it should effect it if we had responsible people in charge (R&Ds). The gov't bond ratings were devalued down from AAA last year, not 2008.
2008 --- just do some reading, the gov't deficit or borrowing (what you like to call supply side economics above) did not cause the recession. Lots of other things did. That does not mean I approve of any administration spending more than it takes in.
Now, how will taking some more money from the rich, or whoever, in the form of taxes spur the economy? What magic will the gov't preform on this money that makes it better spent by them?
For goodness sake, how does somebody becoming rich hurt the economy? Or you? Do they take the money out of your pocket? No! Only the gov't has that power!
Go Canada Go
11:44 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
this article mentions nothing about the the skew factor of a black president
Anonymous
7:31 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
It is way too late for a 3rd party person to rally. Our best bet is to try and influence the 2 parties that we have. Asside from all the retoric. Most (not all) people have miserable situations due to their own lack of self control. People are spending $ on things that are NOT necessary like eating out, cable, iphones etc. The list goes on and on. They are not saving, but living WAY above their means and then crying about prices. We cannot keep spending and spending not to mention what divorce does to a person's finance. Divorce and overspending are doing more damage than any president could ever do. Having both parents work full time is also doing damage to kids who have nobody paying attention to what they are doing (or not doing). Kids are left to play on the computer or text all day long and no adults are evening knowing that they are not studying at all, but rather obsessed with their technology. We are losing many things by having both parents working all the time. Can you imagine how many more jobs there would be if 1 parent in every family stayed at home to manage that small home "business" well, nurtured the children and yes...spent a lot less on worthless items that do nothing but cause debt. Yes, I care who is president and that we NOT have a debt to other countries, but the big problems effecting our children are being caused by US the parents.
sherry
10:08 am on Saturday, August 4, 2012
Obama won't be getting my vote (but to be fair he did not last time either).
Unfortunately, that leaves Romney. Not big on him either (for many reasons) but I will probably be voting for him.
I hate the lack of a true conservative in this race...don't care what party label they have behind their names.
And, NO, I will not be voting for anyone who wants to bring all our troops home and not protect us and our allies.
Andrew Wilt
12:26 pm on Saturday, August 4, 2012
sherry - Just out of curiosity, which "allies" do you feel need our protection?