At RealClearPolitics Jeffrey Anderson handicaps the 2016 presidential race using a yardstick that has been quite reliable for elections following two term presidencies during the post-war period—the president’s popularity in the sixth year of his presidency. Based on that yardstick here’s what he comes up with:
So what about Obama? His net approval rating as of July 4 of year 6 was -9 points. The expectation, therefore, would be that the Democrats’ intended successor will lose the popular vote by 4.8 points: (-9 – 15) ÷ 5 = -4.8. That, of course, does not suggest that the Democratic nominee will likely lose by exactly that amount. It suggests that he or she will likely lose by something in the ballpark of that amount.
Remember that in just one of the six post-1950 races involving a non-incumbent running for a party’s third (or more) consecutive term has a candidate exceeded expectations in the popular-vote margin by 4.8 points — or, for that matter, by even half that much. And even that lone exception, Eisenhower in 1952, doesn’t necessarily bode well for the 2016 Democratic nominee. In addition to the reasons given above, Eisenhower was not a member of the party that controlled the presidency, and Hillary Clinton is no Dwight Eisenhower.
So, with an expected deficit of 4.8 points, the Democratic nominee would have to beat expectations by at least three or four points in the popular-vote margin to have any real shot. It is quite difficult for a candidate to win the presidency while losing the popular vote by more than one point. In fact, it hasn’t been done in 125 years. Even Obama, who did very well in swing states — winning nine of the 10 closest states in his race against Mitt Romney — would have lost the presidency had he lost the popular vote by 1.6 points (assuming that his margin had decreased by the same amount in every state).
My own view is that the Democratic candidate, whoever he or she is, is likely to “out-perform” (as he puts it) expectations by three or four points for demographic reasons. Given the present baked-in Democratic edge in electoral votes, it suggests that any election will be close.
I think that anyone, Republican or Democrat, who predicts an easy victory for anyone is blowing smoke up your skirt. In 2016 it won’t be over ’til it’s over.
“Given the present baked-in Democratic edge in electoral votes, it suggests that any election will be close.”
I agree. My reasons, though, may differ from your’s.
IMO, the “baked in edge” achieved by the dems is secured through their successful implementation of dependency and victimization politics. These have fully derailed and/or stripped a majority from objectively analyzing the pros and cons of actions/non-actions taken by the two parties and then applying their conclusions to future voting options.
For instance, one time a political record mattered, and should the circumstances of one’s view shed be dismal, as they are now for almost 7 out of 10 people, via country-going-in- the-wrong-direction polling, a majority would chose another direction. That kind of political party correction, though, has shifted, as people no longer have confidence in their own abilities to make it without some kind of governmental fiscal intervention or social program in tow. Consequently the rise in poverty rates, food stamp participation, runaway long term debt, unsustainable entitlement programs, manipulated UE stats et. al., once excoriated by dems when it occurred under an R administration, are deemed okay and “normal” conditions for today’s life in America. It is further augmented by the standards of self-determination being quietly scrubbed out of the vernacular, replaced by you-need-us-to-survive politics of a muscular progressive government, serenely couched in “empathy for the poor’ rhetoric.
Nonetheless, the masterfully obscured truth is that rather than empowering or inspiring people, the 21st century democratic dogma has simply made them subordinates of a merciful but all-powerful federal government. And, anyone daring to tamper with such a contract, by pointing out different, maybe even painful alternatives to economic salvation, is painted as “evil” and “radical.”
So, yes to penetrate the disengaged, disinterested mind-set of so many people, allowing the blindfolds of party allegiance to fall off, will indeed make the next election very close.
‘ Pends on who shows up to vote, and how clean it is. And why are almost all polling station vols Dem.?
I don’t know what it’s like elsewhere but here in Chicago my experience of 27 years as an election judge suggests that Democrats and Republicans have different temperaments. The Democrats have tended to be more gregarious.
Of course, in Chicago you’ve got to be kind of a rebel to declare yourself as a Republican. I’m judging by actual Republicans not “Republican”—people who declare as Republicans just long enough to serve as an election judge.
I also don’t think that people who are inclined towards libertarianism have enough trust or maybe interest in government to serve as an election judge. It’s why I’ve said that it’s inevitable that social conservatives (who do have the trust and/or interest) dominate the apparatus of the Republican Party. Libertarians just don’t have enough sitzfleisch.
The GOP should win. That said, they seem intent upon finding a candidate even worse than Romney. If this ends up being a turnout election I would expect to hear a lot of chatter about SCOTUS. It looks like there won’t really be any innovative policy. The GOP will run on cutting taxes and starting more wars. The Democrats will want to tax the rich and have slightly fewer, though better managed wars. Not much to choose from.
Steve