Election play book analysis

Avatar for schifferle
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Election play book analysis
1
Sun, 08-01-2004 - 2:26pm
How do the candidates compare? One historian's analysis of factors that come into play in an election (& the subsequent opinion of the submitter of this):

http://www.freedomofthought.com/archives/2004_03.html

Election play book analysis

Ran across an interesting article in the "OR/MS Today" magazine (vol 31, number 4, Feb 2004). It is a trade magazine for Operations Management and Management Sciences professionals (quantitative analysis/statistics/logistics types). Starting on page 36 is an article titled, "Does OR Hold the Keys to the White House."

It is a quantitative historian's analysis of factors that influence presidential elections. There are apparently 13 such key factors, and if you have 7 of them on your side, your candidate wins. Currently the analysis is concluding that Bush will win unless 2 to 5 unlikely things happen: a recession, a major scandal, an explosion of social unrest, the emergence of a highly charismatic challenger, and a perception that there has been no military or foreign-policy success during the term (i.e., a setback or stalemate that negates the quick victories in Afganistan and Iraq).

The "keys" come from a book of the same name, "The Keys to the White House" by a guy named Lichtman. It was published in 1996, and reissued to update it from the 1996 election and predict the 2000 election. Interestingly, Lichtman predicted a popular vote victory for Gore (which I still contend is erroneous given the fraudulent multiple voting of democrats in places like Michigan, and the fraudulent exclusion of absentee ballots of servicemen oversees). Anyway, here are the keys (with a "yes" favoring the incumbent):




The incumbent party holds more seats in the US House of Reps after the midterm election than after the preceding midterm election.


There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination.


The incumbent-party candidate is the current president.


There is no significant third-party or independent candidacy.


The economy is not in recession during the campaign.


Real (constant-dollar) per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth for the preceding two terms.


The administration has effected major policy changes during the term.


There has been no major social unrest during the term.


The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.


There has been no major military or foreign policy failure during the term.


There has been a major military or foreign policy success during the term.


The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or is a national hero.


The challenger is not charismatic and is not a national hero.



And here is an interesting quote from the article: "Lichtman also points out that a number of other variables didn't have much effect: the challenging party's nomination contest, adverse reports on candidate's health, running

mates and endorsements, among others. 'The point,' he asserts, 'is that elections are less about campaigning than people like to believe, and more about governance.

That doesn't mean one party could just stay home, do no campaigning at all, and still win if the keys were in its favor. It does mean, though, that the little ups and downs in the campaigns don't have all that much effect, no matter what the pundits claim. The people are sensible, and they decide based on how well the party in power has governed."



Of course, campaigning is all about shaping perceptions, right? Earlier in the article it stated, "Obviously, some keys require interpretation. In 1992, Lichtman called the "recession" key, Key 5, as lost for Bush even though subsequent analysis indicated the recession had ended in the summer. 'The perception was there during the campaign, and that's what counts,' Lichtman says."

Hmm.. perception over reality. Campaigns designed to lie effectively enough to the citizenry to make a key element of governance that is successful seem like a failure. So, then, obviously I have stumbled across the Democratic

Party playbook being used!

To wit, consider the major propaganda fronts being employed by the Democratic press:




Afghanistan is a "failure" because we haven't captured Osama yet (versus the reality that it has been a stunningly successful military campaign, the vast majority of Afghans are relieved to be rid of the Taliban government, and they are getting close to enacting a democracy-model government there).

Iraq is a "failure" because we never should have gone there in the first place (no WMD found) and it is angering Islamists to more terrorism (versus the reality of another stunning military victory, the vast majority of Iraqis are glad we are there, they are getting closer to a constitution, and WMD were strongly suspected universally before the invasion, there were ample other reasons to go in regardless of the WMD question, and the fact that Islamists could not hate us any more if they wanted to!)

The depiction of Kerry as a "war hero" (what a crock!)

The depiction of the economy being bad because unemployment hovers around 5% or so (under the old economic models, less than 5% unemployment was considered bad as it signaled a manpower shortage and an impending wage

inflation cycle).

The depiction of Bush as a draft-dodging buffoon.

The attempts to make it seem like the WTC disaster was Bush's fault!

The attempts to make a scandal out of VP Cheney's former ties to Halliburton (versus reality of he owns none of their stock, and they aren't an especially crooked company anyway).

The discounting of every major policy enacted by Bush, especially those that stole the thunder from their own agenda (e.g., prescription drugs under Medicare).

And the attempts to unleash major social unrest by continuing to race-bait and divide the country along economic and religious lines.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 08-01-2004 - 10:52pm
"Dewey Wins!"

Give 'em hell, Kerry!