United Way campaign celebration
Your youth sports photos
Fairfield honors service organizations
Home > Blogs > Campaigns Don't Count > Archives > 2007 > November > 14 > Entry
Can good news from Iraq change the prediction?
If you understand American politics better than the pundits, and you’re asking yourself which party will win the presidency next year, you are not looking at the debates or the polls or the pundits’ overheated discussions about whose tongue has slipped most calamitously in the last fortnight.
You’re look at the context, at the nation’s changing circumstances.
One relevant circumstance is changing as this is written: The Iraq war. No doubt about it, American casualties are down. Sectarian violence is down. Major terrorist attacks are down. Some news reports are close to glowing. Optimism is up, even among Iraqis.
All this might not all be attributable to the American “surge.” Other factors might be helping. Whatever. The point is the news is good.
The view that 2008 is looking good for Democrats (offered and expanded upon in the first posts on this blog; see Oct. 5) is based in part on the judgment that the second Bush administration has seen a “major” setback or failure in foreign or defense policy. Whether there has been such a setback is one of the 13 questions posed by the system being promoted here.
Is it possible that the situation in Iraq will turn around enough by next year that the war there cannot be considered a major failure? Theoretically, yes. Well into 1864, many people thought that Abe Lincoln would lose his re-election bid. In fact, he thought so, himself. But the war turned around, and won.
Remember, the issue isn’t whether there’s a war. The issue is how it’s going.
I called Allan Lichtman on Iraq. He made two points, mainly:
1: It’s possible, but still very unlikely that things can go well enough to turn back the foreign-policy-failure “key.” The notion that the war is a failure (meaning that we’re bogged down, that’s it’s not a success, that it’s gone on longer than anybody wanted) is so deeply ingrained by now.
(He didn’t say it, but the Civil War had specific, major, turning-point battles which obviously brought the South’s surrender closer. That’s not how the Iraq is.
2: Meanwhile, the news on the economic front is bad for Bush. One “key” is about the long-term economy. It asks whether the economy has grown slower during the current presidential term than during the previous two terms, on average. The answer is marginal. Two months ago, Lichtman wasn’t turning the key against Bush. But any downturn - now fairly widely expected - would require doing so.
Permalink | Comments (3) | Categories: Iraq
Comments
By TRS
November 15, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this
I would agree that an economic downturn could change that key; but, who knows. I’ve heard predictions which run both ways. For the sake of fairness I think people should understand Lichtman’s political leanings so as to understand his opinions, particularly regarding Iraq. The bios I find on him reflect he considers himself a Democrat, a progressive and in his run for Sarbanes’ Senate seat was against the Iraq war; therefore, it would seem logical his perspective regarding Iraq could reflects a bias. As an alternative view, Americans have high expectations and prefer success to failure - thats pretty obvious. Should Iraq progress continue, the word gets out (only now is the Legacy media beginning to report it) and the end game is that Iraq had some serious bumps along the way but ultimately looks successful, then the Democrats and anti war left will be in a tough spot of explaining why they were so anxious to give up, accept defeat and failure. If polls prove anything, its that the public is concerned with “what have you done for me lately” and if success is the latest thing out there, then except in the mind of the partisans and anti war folks, any rough spots would be a distant memory. I would defer to Licthman’s scolarship regarding his keys; but, I’m not so sure his intepretation of those keys can go unchallenged.By Martin Gottlieb
November 15, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this
There is room for interpretation of some keys. That’s why there are so many keys: The system is designed to yield predictions with room to spare, so that difference in interpretation of one keys won’t affect the predictiion. (That doesn’t always work out; some predictions do come down to one key.) Lichtman argues that there is almost always very LITTLE room for interpretation. He spells out his criteria at considerable length in his book. At any rate, the economic key you refer to is not one that entails interpretation. It’s about the official government growth numbers. Anyway, as of now Lichtman is still turning it for the Republicans, rather than against. Yes, he’s a liberal Democrat. But he flatly predicted a Republican victory in 1988 when, really, every indication was to the contrary. The polls had George H.W. Bush having a “wimp” problem, and they showed Michael Dukakis way ahead (double digits and then some) for month after month. Lichtman flew into the teeth of that, saying that this is simply the kind of year in which the incumbent party wins. Lichtman also predicted a George W. Bush victory in 2004, when the partisan Democrats were absolutely convinced that was their year, and the mainstream pundits were afraid to make any prediction at all. And, again, Lichtman made his call very early. (I wrote my column reporting it in early January of ‘04, well before anybody even knew who the Democratic candidate would be.) This shouldn’t be hard to credit: Lichtman needs to be RIGHT. His professional reputation depends on it. This isn’t a parlor game he’s playing. He’s the keynote speaker this year for the big meeting of the big forecasters organization (mainly economists, I think). He gets this kind of recognition for being right. If he were a partisan in his predictions, there’d simply be no reason for anybody to pay any attention to him.By TRS
November 16, 2007 1:15 AM | Link to this
I’m not saying Lichtman is partisan, but I am not convinced that when anyone is making a judgment call they can totally divorce themselves from their preconceived notions. I know you journalists claim to be able to do so but I have my doubts about that as well. I am sure Lichtman expressed what he felt was an objective view on a subjective issue and he very well may be right. I just think its fair to know all information before accepting someone’s premise.