home
about
archives
|
PREDICTIONS, HISTORY, AND THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
07/28/2008
Every political scientist, it seems, wants to predict the outcome of the 2008 presidential election. With computer models and historical analyses, they make their predictions. And most are saying this is a Democratic year and the election is Obama's to lose. I'm not sure how accurate any of these predictions are, nor how valuable this far out, but it seems like an amusing exercise, especially when the media want desperately for this to be a close race for as long as possible, so they can sell as many ads as possible.
I'm no political scientist, and I have no computer models, but I have been looking at all the presidential races since 1960 to try to find some pattern that might tell us something about what to expect in this race.
There have been 12 elections between the Kennedy-Nixon contest of 1960 and the Bush-Kerry campaign of 2004. The Republicans won seven elections, the Democrats five.
Since there is such a wide disparity in this election between the two candidates' ages, I first looked at age. How often did the oldest candidate win, and how often the youngest? The youngest won seven times (1960, 1964, 1968, 1976, 1992, 1996, and 2004). In five the oldest candidate won. In two of those victories, the oldest candidate was the incumbent president, who almost always has the advantage. So age favors the younger candidate, but not by much. This may be some comfort to Barack Obama, especially since the only presidential candidate in recent memory as old as John McCain was Ronald Reagan, and many believe he was showing signs of Alzheimer's Disease at least by his second term, if not by the end of his first.
I also looked at which party won when there was no incumbent president running. There were four such elections: 1960, 1968, 1988, and 2000. The Republicans won three out of four, but two of those elections were won by former vice presidents: Nixon in 1968 and George H.W. Bush in 1988. Still, this statistic alone favors the Republican unless you acknowledge, as many of us do, that 2000 was not really a win for the Republican. Since Gore won the popular vote and probably would have won the electoral vote had the Supreme Court not stepped in, you could say we have a tie in this category. So this statistic really favors neither McCain nor Obama.
Two of the most interesting aspects of past elections involved how well the country was doing economically and whether or not it was involved in an unpopular war at the time of the election.
The country was doing poorly economically prior to the 1980 and the 1992 elections. Both elections turned out the incumbent, one Republican, one Democrat.
The country was also involved in an unpopular war in three elections: 1968, 1972, and 2004. In 1968 the Republicans won, primarily because of the controversy surrounding the Vietnam War, which the country blamed on the incumbent Democrat. In 1972, the country was still at war, but with a reduced number of troops. The antiwar movement was not as vocal, as it seemed the war was ending, and other factors, like a botched campaign run by McGovern, favored the incumbent Republican. In 2004, the Iraq War was becoming highly unpopular with a large number of Americans, though not yet enough to turn out the incumbent. Additionally, the use of fear by the incumbent as well as some successful negative campaigning kept the Republican in office.
So it seems a poor economy and an unpopular war favor the party out of power only when other factors do not intervene and when there is no incumbent running. Interestingly, in this election, we have both and unpopular war and a poor economy, with no incumbent running. This should favor Barack Obama.
But there is one factor that few political scientists look at because it is so hard to measure in any scientific sense. As a psychologist, however, I it find fascinating. And that is a factor that includes charisma, novelty or a historical first, and perhaps a sense of destiny surrounding one candidate.
Many presidential elections over the past forty four years have been contests between typical politicians, with nothing special about them other than their desire to be president. Many candidates were good men, talented politicians with rather boring personalities like Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Fritz Mondale, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole and John Kerry.
Two candidates, both of whom became president, were tough-as-nails politicians who would have thrown their mothers off the train to win, and who left huge legacies for both good and ill: LBJ and Nixon.
Two candidates, neither of whom became president, were idealistic visionaries who made an enormous impact on the country and/or on their party even though they didn't win: Goldwater and Gore.
You may notice I have not put George W. Bush in any category, mainly because he doesn't fit in any one of them. He is in a category of his own, neither a good man nor a talented politician. Though he comes close to the tough guy category of Nixon and LBJ, he is too much the immature frat boy to be in their league. They would have been amused that someone as untalented and ignorant as George W. Bush ever inhabited the office they did. Obviously Bush is not a visionary, no matter how many times he says he is spreading freedom around the world. George W. Bush was the corporate candidate, an empty suit who had very little to distinguish him, the ideal "conservative front man" put together by a committee of neocons, theocons and econ-cons (headed by Karl Rove) in order to cobble just enough votes to win, and as such he is impossible to categorize. Furthermore, it is highly debatable that he actually won either election.
There is, however, one small group of presidential candidates who must be put in a category of their own, men who rose above all the others, men who had so much charisma that their opponents were no match for them, and men who in hindsight seemed to have what FDR called a "rendezvous with destiny." These were men we will never forget, men who impacted the country and the presidency in large ways, men who stand head and shoulders above other candidates because of their political skills and the ease with which they exerted them, men who were mostly well liked and, regardless of their failings and the controversies which still swirl around them, are still held in high esteem by a majority of the voters.
These three men are John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton.
In the 1960 election, Richard Nixon, though the sitting vice president to an incredibly popular president, was no match for John Kennedy. Though close in age, the two candidates couldn't have been more different. Kennedy had an even temperament, an ease in conversing with voters and the press, and a talent for oratory that Nixon lacked. We still remember many of his words, even though his presidency lasted a mere 1000 days. He was also a Catholic, and America had never elected a Catholic. This added a historical context to the election that fascinated the press and the country. Yes, we remember him because he was assassinated, but we also remember him for his youth, his sense of humor, his intelligence, his charm and his seeming to be born to be president. The presidency fit JFK well, like a fine suit, and we looked at him and listened to him, and were proud to be Americans.
Reagan also seemed destined to be president. Whether one agrees with his policies or not, he was larger than life. He presided over the beginning of the end of the Cold War and was a true leader with good humor and always an interesting story to tell. And boy could he deliver a speech! Perhaps his training as an actor helped, and this former profession also added a historical component to his candidacy. Never before had the nation nominated or elected a Hollywood actor to be their president. At age 69 when first elected, Reagan was the opposite of the youthful Kennedy, more an avuncular presence than a handsome young father. But Reagan charmed the country and won two elections in spite of scandals like Iran Contra that plagued his administration. Reagan was also the opposite of Kennedy in political philosophy. Kennedy was a liberal democrat who believed in social programs, while Reagan preached that government was the problem. Still, it was the essence of the men that was similar, the way they filled a room, their strong sense of self, the singularity of their personalities that won over the country.
And then there was Bill Clinton, a man of enormous personal failings but a larger than life personality, who charmed enough voters to win two elections, a man who is still enormously popular, and would probably have won a third term had it been constitutional, in spite of his impeachment and sexual misbehavior. Bill Clinton knows how to work a room, whether a room full of press or a room full of voters. He knows how to speak to individual citizens, to convince people that he has empathy for their plight and to laugh heartily with them. Like Kennedy he was young when he became president. Like Kennedy and Reagan, he knows how to connect with people, whether one-on-one or speaking from a podium to a crowd of thousands. With respect to history, Clinton was the first baby boomer to run for the presidency, and the first candidate who had a working wife whom he considered an equal in political and governing ability.
Each of these men had winning personalities and very natural smiles. The camera, as they say, loved them. Furthermore, they had an ease in speaking, in deflecting criticism, and in displaying an emotional and social intelligence that their opponents did not. In fact, "natural" might be the best adjective to use for all of them. They were naturals, at ease in small and large venues because they were comfortable with themselves. Not easily flustered, capable of laughing at themselves, adept at getting the press and voters to see things their way, they had a combination of gifts that eluded the other candidates.
This type of candidate always wins. Reagan and Clinton won two terms and each could have easily won a third had the Constitution allowed it. JFK would have won a second term had he lived. No candidate had a chance against such enormously charismatic and talented politicians. Whether these candidates arose at a time when they were needed, when their lives (and death) would exert enormous influence over the nation, we cannot know. The universe works in mysterious ways, but looking back these seem like inevitable presidencies.
Barack Obama is such a candidate. He has the oratorical skills of Kennedy, the ease of Reagan, the political aptitude of Clinton, and the charisma of all three. When he says "this is our time" he may be referring to this generation, to all of us, but I hear something he may not intend. I hear the voice of another candidate who, like Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton, has enormous talents that are not matched by his opponent. I hear the voice of someone who is destined for this time and this role. As the first African American candidate of a major party, Obama is the fascination of the media and many voters. There is the sense that he is meant to break a barrier, to take the country to a place it needs to go, to help it finally overcome the long legacy of slavery and racism that has cast such a shadow
Charismatic, historical candidates like Obama generally do not lose. They are magnets that draw people to them. In contests where there is no charismatic candidate, other factors decide the election. But in contests where one candidate rises above all others by virtue of the strength of his presence and persona, he almost always wins. That is why McCain is going after Obama. He has to find a way to tarnish that persona, to destroy that charisma, to stop the destiny that seems pro-ordained. He is already throwing a host of accusations at him, and there will be many more to come in the days ahead. But if my analysis is right, those attacks will not defeat Obama.
Of course, there is one possible way Barack Obama can lose, one factor that has never arisen in a presidential race that could throw all of this analysis out the window. Barack Obama is the first black presidential candidate of a major party. And if there are enough voters who are still captives of the terrible racial legacy of this country, Obama may be defeated by an inferior candidate, even with his charisma, poise, and oratorical skill.
We will know in 100 days if racism becomes the one factor that overshadows Obama's gifts, and denies him the presidency, or if it no longer has the power it once had. We will see if the nation has evolved enough to elect a black man to the presidency. Electing the first Catholic, the first Hollywood actor and the first baby-boomer were interesting occurrences. Electing the first African American to the presidency of a country that was founded partly on the practice of enslavement of Africans would mark a monumental change in this country.
All content © 2005 outragedcitizen.com
|
