Recently I've been of the opinion that while many like to believe that Presidential elections are always highly uncertain events-any thing could in theory happen between now and election day in November, 2016-that what will happen is pretty predictable. I have argued that:
1. It's extremely likely that Hillary wins the Democratic nomination
2. That Jeb wins the Republican nomination
3. And perhaps most out of keeping with conventional wisdom, that Hillary will win the general election.
However, last night I read Nate Silver who made an interesting argument that maybe Jeb isn't so inevitable.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/04/ok-maybe-jeb-bush-isnt-inevitable.html
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marco-rubio-and-the-pareto-frontier/
He argued that usually the moderate candidate in the GOP field is more electable in the general election but that this may not be the case this time around. Usually, Republicans seem to accept William F. Buckley's credo about running the most electable conservative. However, Jeb may not be all the electable-for reasons that certainly start with the name.
Silver suggests that maybe in this case Rubio or Scott Walker could be the more electable candidates. I do think that Walker has a tendency to make wild statements that aren't exactly in the image of looking 'Presidential' that might get him in trouble in a general election. Walker isn't a moderate-he comes from a state that has some very red Republicans and some very blue Democrats. It's not the case that lots of Dems voted for him.
So maybe Kasich, as Silver suggests, could have an opening.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/kasich-could-be-the-gops-moderate-backstop/
On the other hand this poll suggests that maybe I am right that they'll choose Bush.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/politics/2016-elections-republican-field-poll/index.html
Of my 3 assumptions the only one Silver agrees with is 1: that Hillary is inevitable as the Dem nominee.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-hillary-clinton-steamroller-rumbles-to-life/
What's interesting, is that while some Democrats-according to some polls, most-want Hillary to be challenged, these same Democrats want her to win.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/democrats-want-clinton-to-face-a-primary-challenger-but-they-want-clinton-to-win/
Which suggests to me that these Democrats aren't being logical. See, as logical Democrat I want her to win-so I have no interest in a primary challenge. A less pejorative way to put it how Harry Enton puts it: Americans like choices even if they've made up their mind.
Maybe my difference here is that I was born in England? To me, she's the choice so let's just do it already.
So fivethirtyeight and Silver agree with me on Hillary being inevitable for the Democratic primary. However, he disagrees with me on C. I think Hillary is going to win this but Silver claims her chances are exactly 50-50-the proverbial coin flip.
"There’s already plenty of bad punditry regarding the chances of Hillary Clinton — who officially announced her candidacy on Sunday — to become the 45th president. You can find Democrats boasting about their “blue wall” in the Electoral College and how hard this will make it for any Republican to win. Or Republicans warning that the Democratic Party rarely wins three elections in a row."
1. It's extremely likely that Hillary wins the Democratic nomination
2. That Jeb wins the Republican nomination
3. And perhaps most out of keeping with conventional wisdom, that Hillary will win the general election.
However, last night I read Nate Silver who made an interesting argument that maybe Jeb isn't so inevitable.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/04/ok-maybe-jeb-bush-isnt-inevitable.html
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marco-rubio-and-the-pareto-frontier/
He argued that usually the moderate candidate in the GOP field is more electable in the general election but that this may not be the case this time around. Usually, Republicans seem to accept William F. Buckley's credo about running the most electable conservative. However, Jeb may not be all the electable-for reasons that certainly start with the name.
Silver suggests that maybe in this case Rubio or Scott Walker could be the more electable candidates. I do think that Walker has a tendency to make wild statements that aren't exactly in the image of looking 'Presidential' that might get him in trouble in a general election. Walker isn't a moderate-he comes from a state that has some very red Republicans and some very blue Democrats. It's not the case that lots of Dems voted for him.
So maybe Kasich, as Silver suggests, could have an opening.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/kasich-could-be-the-gops-moderate-backstop/
On the other hand this poll suggests that maybe I am right that they'll choose Bush.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/politics/2016-elections-republican-field-poll/index.html
Of my 3 assumptions the only one Silver agrees with is 1: that Hillary is inevitable as the Dem nominee.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-hillary-clinton-steamroller-rumbles-to-life/
What's interesting, is that while some Democrats-according to some polls, most-want Hillary to be challenged, these same Democrats want her to win.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/democrats-want-clinton-to-face-a-primary-challenger-but-they-want-clinton-to-win/
Which suggests to me that these Democrats aren't being logical. See, as logical Democrat I want her to win-so I have no interest in a primary challenge. A less pejorative way to put it how Harry Enton puts it: Americans like choices even if they've made up their mind.
Maybe my difference here is that I was born in England? To me, she's the choice so let's just do it already.
So fivethirtyeight and Silver agree with me on Hillary being inevitable for the Democratic primary. However, he disagrees with me on C. I think Hillary is going to win this but Silver claims her chances are exactly 50-50-the proverbial coin flip.
"There’s already plenty of bad punditry regarding the chances of Hillary Clinton — who officially announced her candidacy on Sunday — to become the 45th president. You can find Democrats boasting about their “blue wall” in the Electoral College and how hard this will make it for any Republican to win. Or Republicans warning that the Democratic Party rarely wins three elections in a row."
"Most of this analysis is flimsy. So is the commentary about the ups-and-downs in early swing state polls. And when you see some pundit declaring a minor misstep to be a “game changer,” find someone else to follow on Twitter."
"The truth is that a general election win by Clinton — she’s very likely to become the Democratic nominee — is roughly a 50/50 proposition. And we’re not likely to learn a lot over the rest of 2015 to change that."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-begins-the-2016-campaign-and-its-a-toss-up/
He does argue that there's no compelling law of probability that says that the Democrats can't win 3 elections in a row as the sample of siutations to test out this proposition is small.
"Start with the fact that there’s no incumbent president running. There actually haven’t been a lot of cases that precisely meet the circumstances voters will face next year: Barack Obama, assuming he serves out the rest of his term, will become just the fifth president limited by the 22nd Amendment from seeking an additional term in office.1 This is slightly different from the case where an incumbent voluntarily declines to run again.2 Still, the evidence we have from presidential elections and from other contexts like gubernatorial elections is that these cases default to being toss-ups."
As a Democrat and Clinton supporter that's good news-there is no hard law of probability forbidding her from winning. However, he also dismisses the idea of a blue wall:
"Mostly, the “blue wall” was the effect of Obama’s success in 2008 and 2012, not the cause of it. If the economy had collapsed in the summer of 2012, Obama would probably have lost the election, and most of those blue states would have turned red."
This I have to disagree with. There is a long list of blue states that aren't going to vote Republican no matter what the economy. I mean are you telling me that NY, California, Massachusetts, or New Jersey are going Republican depending on how the economy does? The blue wall predates Obama. Even in the Bush wins-which are somewhat tarnished by the question of the stolen election of 2000-he had to eek out the wins because there are in any general election between a generic Democrat and a generic Republican candidate, the Democrats already have 250 electoral votes locked up.
This is why Bush's 2 wins were razor thin-everything had to break just right and in both cases they did-with a little assist by his GOP friends on the SJC in 2000.
There are many ways a Democrat can win, but for the Republican the road is very specific. This is not just the opinion of Democrats either. Here is a GOPer who totally misconstrues the blue wall after the GOP Congressional wins in 2014.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/republicans-just-broke-democrats-blue-wall-20141105
The blue wall theory has nothing to do with winning Congress or the Senate. Nor does a Republican becoming Governor in Massachusetts or Illinois have anything to do with it. Here is a piece from a GOPer who does understand what the blue wall is.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/20/1346224/-GOP-Columnist-The-VERY-Bad-News-FOR-THE-GOP-in-the-GOP-s-Midterm-Victory
I don't know. Part of me thinks that maybe because I'm such a partisan I can't be honest with myself-I have a natural predisposition to be optimistic about her chances. But part of me thinks that maybe Silver just feels its unseemly to say anything other than the election will be a 'tossup.' I mean why exactly is this so-is it that all general elections are tossups or that because Hillary is like personally by 48% of the public and not liked by 46%? I mean is is that easy to divine who will win-examine personal popularity? Is that the only factor? It's the only one he mentions in support of his thesis here.
Meanwhile, another poll supports my theory-she is clobbering every GOPer in this poll. There have been many like this. Greg Sargent:
"HILLARY LEADS ALL REPUBLICANS BY LARGE MARGINS:Also from the new CNN poll:
Rubio fares best against the former first lady, trailing Clinton by 14 points, 55% to 41%. Bush trails Clinton by 17 points, 56% to 39%. Christie and Paul fall 19 points behind Clinton, each putting up 39% to Clinton’s 58%. Huckabee, Walker, Carson and Cruz each trail Clinton by more than 20 points.
"Horse race polls this early mean very little, obviously. But your humble blogger will be posting them from time to time, because you should at least know they exist, expecting that the reader will exercise appropriate caution."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/20/morning-plum-gops-economic-argument-is-bull-t-martin-omalley-says-pay-attention-hillary/
Fine, let's exercise all appropriate caution. Still where is the proof that the election will be a tossup? Because her personal approval numbers are such? Meanwhile Jeb Bush's popularity numbers are upside down and he like her is very well known.
P.S. This is a National Review piece from Michael Barone that at least correctly understands what the blue wall theory is-and what it isn't. He argues that like all rules of thumb the it's true until it isn't.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/413884/breaking-democrats-blue-wall-michael-barone
P.S.S. Assuming it is Hillary vs. Jeb then in reality it's a race between Obama and W. Say what you will about President Obama but that's a race he can still easily win.
No comments:
Post a Comment