TV judge holds workshop at East
2008 Sauerkraut Fest
.jpg)
2008 homecomings
Home > Blogs > Campaigns Don't Count > Archives > 2008 > May > 07 > Entry
An ally! Really?
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).
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).
Permalink | Comments (6) | Post your comment | Categories: 2008 presidential race
Comments
By Mike
May 8, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
Thanks for an interesting post. This is a subject which is being analyzed in much greater detail now that the blogosphere has gotten a hold of it. There have been a number of books published over the last couple of years which look at this in great depth. I read the excerpts which are posted on campaignsdontcount.com and this definitely looks like a book which I will be picking up very soon. If anyone is a political junkie or just tired of reading the conventional and almost always incorrect prognostications (I’m loathe to call is “wisdom”) of the mainstream political punditry, then your book appears like it would be a worthwhile read.By Tom Q
May 8, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this
Hey, thanks for responding. I’d love to keep in touch over this. Like you, I try to proselytize the system, and mostly find people unresponsive. (One good friend repeatedly tells me to shut up about it because “What good did it do us in 2000?”) I think it’s obvious why the press is so uninterested in the system: it removes the “what a race/you can’t turn away for a minute” ethic which is their raison d’etre (their primary message is basically, Stay tuned). For other, lay folk, I think it may be a matter of the system causing them to abandon hope. I have to concede that, as a Democrat, even I had an inclination to massage the system in ‘04 — Couldn’t Abu Ghraib be a big enough scandal? Was a gain of 3 House seats really enough to claim the mandate key? (I’d still be dubious about calling a one-key election on something as close as that) You tell people in June, forget it, your candidate’s a loser, they aren’t grateful (much as Hillary supporters didn’t appreciate Chuck Todd’s inarguable math over the last two months). As far as this year’s Keys…well, I’m glad the election’s such a laydown that we don’t have to wait on such gray-area Keys as contested nomination. I agree, the Romney pullout may have distorted Lichtman’s criterion. In fact, the early primary decisions of recent years — this Dem one obviously excepted — may require him to refine the key. I mean, McCain clinched the nomination while losing 2/3 of the contests; I can’t see that being the equivalent of Bush ‘88 or Gore 2000. Re: recession…I see today Reagan’s former economic advisor has echoed Warren Buffett, saying the numbers are obscuring the issue, that we’re clearly in recession right now. In addition to what you cite, I’ve heard people who know more about this than I say that last week’s GDP report had a wildly under-valued inflation index (2.6, where other reports have said 4.0), which had the effect of massaging the number over zero. The main point, as I said before and you concurred with: 80% in polls are saying we’re in recession; it’s hard to see how that doesn’t impact the election. (Recall ‘92, when every number said we were long out of the recession, but people didn’t believe it; without that, Clinton might have fallen short) Then, charisma…as you say, tricky, partly because I think we’re always more comfortable ascribing such traits to those from the past than those immediately before us. (As someone once said upon hearing a first baseman’s play compared unfavorably to Keith Hernandez’s, “Hernandez in his prime couldn’t compare to Hernandez in our heads”) I’m old enough to have memories of JFK (11 years old when he was killed), and I certainly think he was a cool guy. But as far as the (absolutely historically accurate) notion that the debates cemented his charisma quotient…PBS showed the debates sometime in the 70s. I sat back, prepared to be awed by his star-power — and was bored beyond belief. So, it’s a hard judgment to make. (For instance, I always found Reagan too corny for my taste, but, you know, I’m not a Republican, so you can’t trust my take) I guess my argument for Obama is, something has brought him this far this fast, and it’s obviously not his legislative record. From the first time I saw him (the legendary ‘04 convention speech), I just thought he had It. He wasn’t even my first choice this year (Edwards guy), but I’ve always assumed the charisma key was his if he got the nod. (As far as Lichtman not granting it…I was frankly always surprised Lichtman denied it to Clinton, too, given that he was considered such a super-star — at least, till recently) Of course, this system requires intellectual honesty to work (I saw some right-winger at one site tick off the prescription drug benefit as major policy change, McCain as war hero, and the Iraq war as a success), so,as I say, I’m happy I don’t have to stretch to make the election come out my way this time. Finally, the correlation between number of fallen Keys and margin…well, the biggest party-change margins have certainly been associated with alot of fallen Keys (1920, ‘32, ‘52, ‘80), but obviously there are a few (‘60, ‘68, ‘76) where lots of downed Keys yielded tight outcomes. ‘68 you can maybe ascribe to the Wallace candidacy — a once-a-century realignment dance — which masked the level of rejection of LBJ. But 1960 is fairly disquieting, as it featured almost the same arrangement of Keys as this year’s and was yet so close. It’s natural to assume Kennedy’s Catholicism was a freakish confusion factor — but (speaking as a raised-Catholic) anti-Catholicism is pretty weak bigotry tea compared to what we’ll be confronting this time around. My basic impulse is to say, presuming the recession is on and undeniable, and Obama performs at his best, this should be a major blowout, but the margins might be trimmed 2-4 points by racism, esp. in the older demographics. This, of course, is beyond the Keys system; just an opinion I hold. That’s it for now. I’ll be back.By TRS
May 9, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
Lichtman’s system certainly has a track record. I would consider myself a skeptical ally. Perhaps the reason people aren’t fond of the concept is that it seems to easy, to cut and dried with very little room for debate or discussion. People like to believe their views count and to narrow the election down to 12 keys seems to to discount the things they believe to be important. You also have the “business” of elections with the various networks that preclude such simplification.By TRS
May 10, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this
As a Republican and conservative I find myself trying to do this year what Tom Q did on ‘04 - massage the keys; but, frankly, I really have no argument with Lichtman’s keys at this point. If the election goes as predicted then I will move from a skeptic to a believer. I maintain some skepticism because of Tom’s last comments regarding racism. My father-in-law, a blue collar hard working man all of his life and an avid life long Democrat will not vote for Obama based on race. That is a sad commentary and an unfortunate reality. It is next to impossible to determined how many of those folks are out there. I guess the one good thing if Senator Obama is elected is that it would reflect the progress made in race over the past decades. As far as the Charisma issue, Senator Obama’s comments in San Francisco, his long term relationship with Rev Wright and his wife’s comments have diminished his “rock star” status and in my view you can safely put #13, “challenging party charisma” into the false column. That being said, there still exists a safe margin.By Tom Q
May 14, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this
TRS, I agree with most of what you say, but will dispute the charisma question — not because the issues you raise aren’t things that will cause trouble for Obama, but because I don’t think they have any connection to his charisma. As an analogy: in 1980, Reagan — before he became the transformational winner of two landslides — was viewed by a significant number of voters as Another Goldwater. Even after Reagan had wrapped up the delegates for nomination, Gerald Ford was running around, like Hillary today, proclaiming himself “electable” (the clear implication was, Reagan was not). You could say some in the electorate must have felt the same as, despite running against a president with lethal approval ratings, Reagan couldn’t take a consistent poll lead till the end (and then only a small one). My point — finally arrived at — is, there were many reasons why people might not have voted for Reagan, just as the ones you noted are there for Obama…but none of them impinge on the view of most that he (Reagan) was a charismatic candidate. Charisma is something of an ideology/content-free quality; that’s why I’d disagree that controversial comments or associations can cut into it.By TRS
May 17, 2008 12:57 AM | Link to this
Some good points Tom Q. One definition I find on charisma is extraordinary charm and grace. No question Senator Obama has those characteristics - I guess its up to the voting public to determine as to whether they are extraordinary. I would agree its a close call.