Asymmetrical Information

Clinton never would have been elected president - in either 1992 or 1996 - if he hadn't run as a pseudo-moderate or "third-way" Labor counterfeit.

Save for Clinton, Democrats have offered nothing for the White House but ostentatious, bookish liberals since 1968. Carter was lucky enough to ride GOP fatigue but like Mondale and Dukakis, was hammered in 1980 by America's traditional rejection of uncloaked liberals. Al Gore should have knocked Bush down and won by double digits - but he was quickly outed as an unattractive liberal who couldn't tell tall tales very well.

Now, the only way to remain "cloaked" is to hit the national stage obfuscating. Deny everything. Throw in a "middle class tax cut" for good measure. Few of the candidates are unknown to those with even Americans outside the politics arena; those candidates relatively unknown like Dean and Clark can't pull off a Clinton. Dean might wow the party faithful, but as the 2004 nominee he'd pop like corn in hot oil when the rest of America went to the polls.

A Clinton game, however, is like the firing of afterburners: big gain, impossible to catch - impossible to sustain. Clinton is anathema to the Democrats in public settings, and it took him less than ten years to burn himself off. What with conservative media burgeoning, it seems unlikely that a candidate even as talented as Clinton would last long with such brazen politicking and lying.

The answer is neither liberals nor shell-gamers: they're run by fringers and America is catching on quickly (read: November 2002). If lefties like Dean represent a blueprint to future Democratic architecture, I'd predict GOP majorities in Congress like those Democrats enjoyed mid-latter-20th Century. The answer is a moderate uprising from within the Democratic ranks and bringing them back to reality.

Incidentally, why would Ruffini think that the dove/appeasement left wing was stronger in 1992 than now? By what I've seen and heard from every single candidate at party gatherings, anyone who doesn't push like custard on military matters - like Gephardt - gets booed.

The only thing that Dean has going for him is that he has a clear message, which is something that the Democrats currently lack. However, I am certain that it is a message that won't play well nationally. Indeed, as I have argued elsewhere, the Dem's main hope is for the war to go badly. For if the war goes well, what will they campaign against? Especially since a quick war should relieve some of the tension in the domestic economy, and, I would argue, likely enhance consumer confidence and unleash investment.

Many years in the wilderness?

Um, in the America I know, the GOP controlled the White House for 8 of the 12 years prior to Reagan's election.

Yes, but they'd lost the debate, much the way that the left wing of the Democratic party is now shut out on policy matters. Nixon was a lot more statist than Clinton, with price controls, etc. That's why the Democrats controlled congress for years and years.

And GWB would not have been elected over Gore if he didn't tell a million lies to the public about being a compassionate conservate. Let's take "uniter, not a divider." How's that holding up?

He's a one-termer. Good riddance.

Poliblogger:

Why so sure that a strong clear liberal message won't play? The same conditions hold now as they did in 1992. Bad economy, war-obsessed president, rising deficits...

Bill ran on a universal health care message, if I recall, and won with a little help from H. Ross who focused the nation back on the state of our economy. Yeah, he had a "third-way" moderate message on the economy, but it's the message that works.

GWB has a tougher trick this time around. In 2000, he got credibility points for talking down the economy as it was going down. As an incumbent, he has to talk up an economic future and make excuses for a poor economic record--both of which will make him look mendacious or clueless, or both, just like his father.

It seems most here follow the 'ideological waves' approach to explaining national elections.

I've always felt that an equally good alternative explanation to Presidential choices is the economy. I know it's not perfect but it works pretty well.

In this model Reagan did not get elected in '80 and reelected in '84 because of ideological changes in the electorate but rather because the economy was bad in 1980 and great in '84. If Ford had beaten Carter in '76 then it would have been Ford presiding over a bad economy (inflation from previous policy choices, oil shock) and the Dems would have probably conmtrolled the WH in the 1980s.

(yes, some will argue that the fact that the economy was great in 84 and bad in 80 was a reflection of the incumbent president's policies. I am not one of them and I think most economists would agree with me. Presidents have precious little impact on the short term and it's monetary policy that seems to drive the economy in that time frame.)

Clinton, in this model, won because the economy was bad. The model would also predict that almost any other dem would have won in 92. of course there is no way to prove that.

As for '04 I expect the economy will once again play a determinant role. Morgan Stanley is now predicting GDP growth for '03 of 2.1%. Brad Delong calculates that that could raise unemployment to 6.5% by the end of the year.

If so, I expect Bush will lose. Polls are beginning to reflect that deterioration in the voting intention.

I did say that the model is not perfect. I think it really only applies to incumbents, not to VPs or others from the same party.

I disagree with the idea that presidents have little impact in one respect. Reagan gained instant and lasting credibility on the economy with his correct prediction of the effect of removing gas price caps (over dire warnings of economic collapse from Dems). That initiative was a strongly positive economic decision.

While within a certain normal range of policy options (the Relevant Range) I agree wholeheartedly, policies outside of this range can have drastic effects on the economy. The tough part is deciding which policies are within the range and allowing for "creeping".

"Friends active in New England Democratic politics say he's considerably farther to the left than the other major contenders, and has said so on the record enough that if he does get the nomination, the election is effectively over."

This seems unlikely. If you write down all of Bush's positions on a sheet of paper and polled that, you'd get pretty bad numbers too.

"This seems unlikely. If you write down all of Bush's positions on a sheet of paper and polled that, you'd get pretty bad numbers too."

Oh boy, I sure hope he believes that in his heart of hearts. Jason McCullough probably bought shares of those internet stocks at the very top of the boom. Lucky for him, I can still arrange for him to purchase shares of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Has anyone ever heard of Al Sharpton? Now there is truly a uniter and not a divider. This low life scum bag will definitely unite the voting public against the Democrats in 2004.

Do not feed the trolls.

GT: the problem with your argument is that the MSDW team is forecasting growth of 4% in 2004, the actual election year. Who knows whether they are right but you're bias is showing in your selection of data.

JT,

By then it will be too late. Given that unemployment is always a lagging indicator by the time it started falling the negative political impact would have already been effected.

Remember 1992. The economy had been growing since March 1991 but, unfortunately for Bush I, unemployment kept rising. By the summer of 92 it had already started falling but it was too late for him.

If come the beginning of 2004 unemployment is in the 6.5% to 7% range I suspect Bush will lose even if unemployment starts falling in 2004. it will take several months for people to accept that the fall is real and even then it will take veen longer to go back to the levels voters would consider addequate.

GT, a few points

It was Reagan who brought in Paul Volker(sp), and selected him primarily for idealogical purposes. Volker is credited with bringing inflation under control, which was killing economic output in the late 70's using monetary policy as the primary instrument. While the Fed is independent of the Ex. branch, by putting the right guy in charge who agrees with your ideas the President is able to exert nominal control over monetary policy.

GB 41 ran the third worst campaign since 1980, beaten out by only Dukakis and Mondale for ineptitude. That did not help his chances. An effective campaign would have had these numbers in hand to rebut the charges or the worst economy in the last (insert ridiculous time span here). I don't think history will replay itself with regards to the campaign.

Poll numbers don't have much predictive value until the last year, year and a half of his term. Saw a C-SPAN deal with Charlie Cook where he talked about there is no coorelation between polling data and reelection until that final year, when approval/disapproval begins to solidify. Look at the numbers around Memorial Day 04 and you will be able to tell if Bush is in big trouble or not. Right now, his numbers reflect the same thing the stock market does. Extreme uncertainty about the future.

Not to nitpick, but it seemed important in the context of Joe's argument to note that Volcker was appointed to chair the Board of Governors at the Fed by Jimmy Carter, not Reagan.

GT,
It's an interesting model. It needs more run to gauge it's value/accuracy in making predictions.
You distorted one aspect, though:
You admitted the economy had started turning around before the 92 election, and asserted that it took longer before the people noticed it. I remember that campaign quite vividly, and I remember thinking, "Hmm, it seems the economy is getting better. Why is the media still harping so much on the recession and hammering Bush for it?" Before Clinton was even inaugurated, the media finally printed an article that the economy had turned around 8 months ago, but didn't want to report it for fear of providing optimism too early. I saw it as a blatant ploy to get Bush defeated, and I still feel to this day that it worked. Sure, the observant noticed the economy was better before the election. But a significant number of people voted against Bush because they believed the economy was still bad, ONLY because the papers kept repeating that it was. Since people in one city have no personal idea how the economy, job market, etc are actually doing in the other cities of the union, all they had to depend on for that sort of information was a newpaper media that delayed reports for more than EIGHT MONTHS. What happened to the journalistic integrity that demands people have a right to know? It would have been nice if the news media would continue to have that attitude of delaying information for public good regarding leaks from military sources that could end up causing deaths of soldiers...but it's probably too much to ask.

1. The 92 election: Perot was the 500 lb gorilla - not the economy or anything else.
GHWB went along with the Dems and raised taxes. I'd say that at least 60% of the
Perot vote came from Republicans who thought that they had voted for Reagan's third
term.

2. In the wilderness: Worse even than it appears. The Democrats controlled both
houses of Congress more than 90% of the time since 1928. Ike was offered the
nomination by both parties. The 52 election was essentially non-partisan. Then the
craziness started. The Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter string was the Keystone
Kops writ large (The Three Stooges for you younger folks).

3. The future: The 2002 election was huge. The Republicans had 6 more Senate
incumbents at risk than the Democrats, yet gained. In 2004 the Dems have many more
seats at risk, a lot of them in the Red States. In the reapportionment after the 2000
census the Democrats set out to consolidate the Congressional Districts that they
already controlled. The Republicans took a more ambitious route. They sought to
weaken Democratic districts rather than build super safe Republican districts. They
also gained in 2002.

4. The coup-de-grace: McCain-Feingold. Be very careful what you wish for. The
Democratic Party ceased to be "Liberal" quite a long time ago. It is a populist
interest-group coalition. You support my cause and I'll support yours. There is no
coherent philosophy or set of principles other than raise money and use it elect the
useful idiots. McC-F cuts them off at the knees. The Republicans will have a huge,
maybe 2 to 1, advantage in campaign funds. The interest groups are no longer allowed
to make contributions. Their power is gone. Do you really think that that the Sierra
Club has all that influence because of the number of voters it puts in the polling
booth?

Megan, when you speak of Howard Dean as being the perfect candidate to give Democrats "some time in the wilderness," are you analogizing to Barry Goldwater in 1964 (who lost at least as decisively as Dean would, were he nominated)? If
so, remember that Goldwater's defeat contained the (Reaganesque) seeds of future GOP victories. By that standard, the Republicans who supported Reagan over Nixon in the 1968 primaries, and at the convention, weren't indulging themselves, they were merely ahead of their time...

You're right, though, about Dean being a lot farther to the left than the current portrayal --so much so that it's hard to take him seriously as a legitimate presidential candidate. Right now, only four Democrats in the race can say that: alphabetically, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman. Everyone else (Moseley Braun, Kucinich, Dean, Bob Graham, Sharpton, Wesley Clark, and have I forgotten anyone?) is either delusional, or having a lark.

Hillary could be the fifth, but if she got in now, Al Sharpton -- who would lose about half of his NY base overnight -- would devote the next 3-4 years to destroying her political future in the state. (See his previous efforts to send Robert Abrams, Mario Cuomo and Mark Green into retirement.)

My first vote was for Barry Goldwater. You had to be 21 then. Don't have a real strong opinion on that but at least I had experienced being shot at and missed. They told me that if I voted for Barry that we would become involved in a terrible land war in Asia. I did. We did.

Children, the whole Camelot thing was a very stupid, very cynical, very outre cabal of gangsters that almost hijacked our dream. John Roselli shot JKK. RFK was not not killed by Sirhan Bishara Sirhan. They were both killed by the New Orleans mob because old Joe stepped out of line.

Bizarre!! I'm a really crazy guy!

Read about 30,000 pages. The Warren Report. Bill Bonnano's book. Bunch of others. Come back and let's talk.

I was in Peshawar, Pakistan during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I saw the traffic coming across the KW-26 machines. This was a total cluster fuck. The horror was that instead of worrying about millions of human beings they were worried about public opinion.

These cretins extended the cold war by many years. We have distinguished historians who sing their praises. Whores of Babylon.

I will never vote for a Democrat. I even voted for Richard Nixon. Now that takes some real guts.

Achilles, I was unaware of that, I always thought and got the impression he was appointed by Reagan. Damn right wing media!!

Comments are Closed.