Home > Blogs > Campaigns Don't Count (Skip to blog navigation.)
By Martin Gottlieb
| Friday, June 20, 2008, 02:27 PM
Here’s a piece that I just wrote on my day job with the Dayton Daily News. It kind of enlarges on a subject already touched on here. Starts now:
This column has already done everything possible to make clear that Barack Obama will win the national popular vote in November. It’s a Democratic year. The predictive system that is always right (pretty much) says so.
A reader might be tempted to assume that a prediction of an Obama win nationally implies a prediction of an Obama win in Ohio. After all, Ohio has been the decisive state lately (pretty much).
Continue reading "Obama and Ohio: Race Comes Down to Race"...
Permalink
| Comments (1)
| Post your comment
By Martin Gottlieb
| Friday, June 6, 2008, 07:29 PM
Where we stand as Obama wraps it up:
This post is partly in response to a comment posted on the string below. A writer suggests that the Lichtman keys are missing the intensity of the Democratic split this year. She says that intraparty wounds could, indeed, hurt Obama, even if divisions in an “out” party havn’t hurt a candidate in the past.
A response: Maybe.
But, in truth, in every election there seems to be something that has never been present before, something special that will upset the keys because of its intensity.
In the 1988, it was, among other things, “The Wimp Factor.” George H.W. Bush, having been a Uriah Heepish V.P. for so many years — having looked SO tiny compared to Reagan — was now the subject of newsweekly cover stories saying he was just too wimpy to be elected president.
But nature took its course: He started delivering Peggy Noonan’s manly lines (“Read My Lips: No Knew Taxes”), and the Republican convention featured film of him landing on an aircraft carrier as the youngest fighter pilot in WWII or something. And was that. A factor that has seemed dominant for a year disappeared in an instant. Poof.
In ‘92 it was Clinton being an adulterer and a Vietnam war protester in England and a draft dodger and having a feminist wife.
There’s always something. But so far nothing seems to have upset the keys.
Having said that, I have to also make a periodically-necessary disclaimer: The system will be wrong someday. Lichtman has never presented it as foolproof.
My own sense though is that the Democratic divisions are too close to ordinary to have any impact.
There’s nothing ideological here. I’m mean, there’s nothing about the direction of the country. By comparison, when Eisenhower beat Taft in 1952, the Republican conservatives — the base, even then — were bitterly disappointed.
Other, earlier elections saw multi-ballot conventions turning candidates who won in November: 1920, 1932.
The one factor that does give me pause (and Lichtman, too) this year is race.
We are talking, after all, about a predictive scheme that is based on historical precedents. And there is certainly no precedent for a black candidate.
You might noticed that the Lichtman keys make no mention of the demographic characteristics of the candidates. This does not mean that anybody is saying that such characteristics are irrelevant. It only means that if a given characteristic doesn’t keep a candidate from winning the nomination of a mainstream party, it is apparently not all that problematic.
This year certain characteristics would prevent an election in November: being a Muslim, certainly. Gay. Atheist. Mormon? But they would prevent a nomination first.
Being black does not seem to be in that category. However, one can’t help but notice that the Democratic nomination came down to TWO candidates of unprecedented demographic characteristics. So maybe the fact that one won isn’t so meaningful.
Not that I’m hedging. The prediction is in. I’m just making another prediction: If the prediction is wrong — which it won’t be — race will be the reason.
Permalink
| Comments (2)
| Post your comment
More:
2008 presidential race
By Martin Gottlieb
| Wednesday, May 7, 2008, 04:02 PM
I’ve taken so ludicrously, shamefully long to respond to a couple of posts (DAY JOBS!!) that I have decided to do so in new posts, rather than hope people are still checking for comments after old posts.
I’ll copy the post I’m responding to here, then respond.
Here’s one:
I want to commend you for being so adamant about Lichtman’s system, but I warn you not to expect many to listen. I’ve been a fan of the system since I read the book in ‘92, and have advocated for it on blogs across the Internet. But I can’t tell you the number of times people have either utterly ignored the points, or tried to rebut them with irrelevancies or falsehoods. Thanks to the ignorant press, many out there truly believe elections have turned on Reagan saying “There you go again”, the Weinberger indictment in ‘92, the swift-boaters, the DUI of 2000 (which is said to have been the only thing that prevented a Bush landslide)
I’m sure you know of Occam’s Razor — which is frequently mis-stated as “the simplest explanation is probably correct”, but is actually “When considering an issue, cut away all but things that are truly relevant”. I’d say no profession is more disdainful of Occam than political punditry, which spends the vast bulk of its time on things that aren’t germane in the least.
In a way, I’m glad about this election, which may finally put the lie to the media contention that Willie Horton and Boston Harbor torpedoed an otherwise completely electable Michael Dukakis. The GOP is clearly planning to run the precise same campaign this year — with media assistance — but the Keys circumstances are so wildly different that the result is certain to be the opposite. How will our press corps justify themselves in that aftermath?
By the way, how many Keys do you see ultimately falling this year? The only ones I see as clearly staying up for the GOP are third-party and social unrest. Scandal is probably not quite bad enough to fall, though Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzales and heckuva-job Brownie push it into gray area. And incumbent party contest is devilishly hard to pinpoint. Surely McCain’s nomination was half-hearted and achieved solely through the combo of split right-wing votes and winner-take-all primaries. But McCain may top Lichtman’s 2/3 delegate standard.
The rest, though — mandate, incumbency, short and long term economy (technically not a recession yet, but tell the public that), policy change, foreign policy disaster and lack of success, incumbent non-charisma and challenger charisma (yes, I assume Obama) — this is one of the surest elections in American history. (If you tilt either contest or scandal against the GOP, it’s 10 negatives, the most in all the years Lichtman surveys)
Once again, thanks for taking up the standard of intelligent election coverage. At least some of us are on your team.
END
RESPONSE:
Wow! A believer. How exciting. I don’t think I know any others, except for Lichtman. I know a few people who see Lichtman as having a point. But as to real believers, I don’t think so.
As for frustration, tell me about it.
I love the points you make about Willie Horton, Swift Boats and all that. You are completely right.
I have been writing about this subject since 1986. For a while, my column got some national distribution (because the New York Times Wire distributes columns from the Cox wire. Cox is the chain that owns the Dayton Daily News, site of the aforementioned day job. To this day, when I have a Lichtman related column, I put it out on the wires.
Some readers, at least in Dayton, have picked up on the subject. I am identified locally with this subject more than any other. It’s an icebreaker in conversation. People I know and don’t know ask me about the latest prediction.
But as for journalists, forget about it. Nothing.
I finally got so frustrated, I wrote a book. And, trust me, that means REALLY frustrated, because I’m not a guy who likes to go home from a day of writing and start writing.
Then I couldn’t get the book published. I’ll let others decide whether that was because of the quality of the book, which is mention at the top of this blog and still available, because I self-published it.
Then I failed completely to get reviewers to pay any attention to the book.
Completely.
And yet, the fight goes on.
(But perhaps you can see why sometimes I’m a little slow about posting.)
We should keep in touch and exchange notes. Thanks for writing.
As for this year’s keys: At this stage, Lichtman is only calling seven against the Republicans:
House seats moving in D direction;
no incumbent on the ballot;
bad long-term economy;
no policy change;
foreign policy failure;
no foreign policy success;
and no incumbent charisma.
The key on turning many of the keys is the word “major.” It means MAJOR.
So, on scandal we’re just not there. The Libby and Gonzalez things are too ordinary. Something has to touch the president directly.
As for a recession this year, technically we’re not there yet. That’s mainly because the low price of the dollar is helping exports. That keeps the economy growing very marginally. But I think you’re on to something when you say the public certainly feels a recession. Close call.
As for Barama’s charisma, this is perhaps softest of the keys. Charisma is something that sometimes just emerges. JFK’s charisma really only became apparent, Lichtman says, after the first debate with Nixon. Suddenly JFK had a sort of star quality, with the “bobby soxers” jumping and screaming. Their have certainly been signs of that with Obama. But I’m not ready to turn the key, and neither is Lichtman. Personally, I don’t think Obama is in a league, say, with Reagan as to personal connection with people. But there is some sort of phenomenon at work here; I can tell that in Dayton, Obama got the biggest and most enthusiastic crowd I’ve seen any politician get here in 24 years. But Hillary won the state. We’ll see.
No on social unrest.
On incumbent party unity: At a certain stage Lichtman was assuming the Rs would be divided enough to turn the key against them. But, as you say, the 2/3-of-the-delegates seem to be there for him. This might relate to Romney having given up fairly early.
No third party.
In sum: The incumbents can only lose five keys. They’re losing seven. If they lose recession or challenger-charisma, it’s lopsided. (But that does not mean a prediction of a lopsided victory).
Continue reading "An ally! Really?"...
Permalink
| Comments (6)
| Post your comment
More:
2008 presidential race
By Martin Gottlieb
| Thursday, April 24, 2008, 05:37 PM
This is a column I put out on the wires at the beginning of April, before Pennsylvania. It still stands (except that I just added the sentence about Eisenhower):
Under the prevailing rules of opinion journalism, if you have a regular newspaper column, you are now supposed to write one that says Hillary Clinton’s persistence threatens to tear her party apart and give the presidential election to John McCain.
Every single columnist in the world has complied with this edict. Or so it seems, anyway.
Every one of them is flat wrong —- and in a way that demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of American democracy.
Continue reading "Great Democratic Divide Is No Problem"...
Permalink
| Comments (4)
| Post your comment
More:
2008 presidential race
By Martin Gottlieb
| Friday, April 18, 2008, 06:16 PM
And we’re back.
I took some time off, because this blog is really about the general election, not the primaries. But now we’re close enough to the general to start taking note of stuff.
As this is written, the hot debate that’s relevant here is about the Clinton-Obama debate of Wednesday night. The Friday stories are largely about how questioners George Stephanapolous and that Gibson guy are taking flack because the first 50-minutes of the debate were taken up with questions about various flaps: “bitterness,” Hillary’s memories about Bosnia, all that. Lots of people are saying the subject should have been Iraq, trade or the budget or something like that.
I certainly agree. The Democrats need to be pressed, for example, on what they would do if all hell breaks lose in Iraq upon their election or the beginning of their planned withdrawals.
What needs to be noted here, though, is the reason the debate was the way it was. Stephanapolous makes clear why: We had to focus on electability, he said. That’s what’s hot now, he said. That’s why he had to keep asking about the personal faults the Republicans might exploit.
That seems odd, whether one accepts the premises of this blog or not. Who SAYS the journalists must focus on electability? Is there any indication that the voters have been voting on that basis? Why shouldn’t the media be more concerned with the nation’s problems than the Democrats’?
At any rate, if Mr. S understood the points this blog is trying to demonstrate to him and his political/journalistic circles, he wouldn’t be under the delusion that the November election outcome might have been determined when Obama fretted about small-town Pennsylvania voters being so “bitter” as to vote against him.
It’s just one of those flaps. By November, they all wash out. All the candidates’ flaws and strengths are out there by then for everybody to see, and all the candidates start looking seriously flawed — and seriously capable. At that point voters move on to other concerns.
Understanding this dynamic is important, not merely because it’s true — not merely on the general principle about the truth setting us free — but because it matters. Ignorance of the basic nature of our elections shapes behavior, especially media behavior.
Permalink
| Comments (0)
| Post your comment
More:
2008 presidential race
By Martin Gottlieb
| Sunday, February 17, 2008, 08:02 PM
The view is widespread that John McCain has a conservatives problem that could be fatal.
Reporter Matt Stearns writing a typical an analysis for McClatchy:
“Though such ‘maverick’ stances made McCain a darling of the media and
independent voters, it’s a simple fact that a general-election victory
without the enthusiasm of the Republican Party’s grassroots base would be
impossible.”
Let’s examine this “simple fact.”
Continue reading "Can conservatives hurt McCain"...
Permalink
|
|
More:
2008 presidential race
By Martin Gottlieb
| Friday, January 18, 2008, 01:40 PM
To anybody who’s focused on the Lichtman “keys,” all this talk about a bipartisan stimulus package to avoid a recession is interesting.
After all, the keys say that a recession during an election year would be a good thing for the Democrats.
I’m not saying that, therefore, the Democrats should want a recession. I’m just saying.
Permalink
|
|
More:
2008 presidential race
Back to top
More entries...
Latest comment
To expand just a little on that “Bradley effect” (the tendency of polls to not capture