Political Hermeneutics

Formulas for Predicting Midterm Elections

Gosh, I love this stuff. Sorta addicted.

Some people -- like me -- just love sorting through political data. I get a thrill looking for trends, trying to smooth out outliers, and in the best of all possible worlds, accurately predicting future races. Every morning, before I get out of bed, I reach over to my laptop and pull up Rasmussen's daily, Gallup's daily, Hedgehog, Right Pundits, RCP averages, and 538. My daily fix.

I've met quite a few political "junquies" who spend considerable amounts of their waking hours devising formulae for predicting upcoming elections. They're sick puppies -- really! -- who can't quit thinking statistics. They're the ones who use words like autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity. Huh? Predictably, their statistical myopia obscures emotions and passions within the populace. They don't see it and thus, don't understand it. Blinded by the world of numbers, they're useless ... almost.

Any formula must start with the voter's inertia, or the unwillingness, in the short term, to admit they've been duped or made a mistake, and in the long term, to change party affiliation or sympathy. People don't like to change, in spite of Obama's rhetoric to the contrary.

Also, the formula must somehow quantify how different events or happenings effect the natural inertia of voters. This isn't easy. Politicians often work under the radar of ordinary voters. In normal years, voters aren't very motivated to gain information. So ignorance, in itself, has to be a factor contributing to inertia.

So far, inertia + ignorance ...

When voters are well informed by the MSM as well as alternative media sources such as Fox news and talk radio, their skepticism rises quickly. Currently, the health care debate is an example of voter ignorance changing to knowledge. Ordinary people are actually trying to read the opaque bill. They're watching Glenn Beck. Listening to Rush. And the upshot of this voter "education" is passion.

So, so far, inertia + (ignorance - passion) ...

Most politicos love to add economic data to the formula. Its clean. Easy to quantify. Accessible. And it makes the formula look so academic! As the above referenced article puts it, "The motivations for including growth in per capita GDP, real taxes, and real transfer payments in our regressions of course is to measure the impact of economic conditions on election outcomes ..." Did you see that "of course?" What a snit.

Here's the interesting stuff.

Every ONE percentage point increase in per capita GDP increases the presidential party's share of by 1.47 percentage points.

Every ONE percentage point increase in real transfer payments adds 0.12% to Obama's increase.

Every ONE percentage point increase in per capita federal taxes subtracts 0.36% from Obama's midterm election results.

And then he fudges. He says, in reality, that the impact of growth in output and taxes to be larger than the impact o government transfers. Another interesting tidbit is that taxes and benefits at a local level do not have any impact on how voter's react in federal midterm elections. Really?

So here's the formula, with X as the leading coefficient or variable:

Inertia + X(information efficacy)(1.47GNPdelta)(0.12transferpaymentsdelta)(-0.36federaltaxdelta)

Pretty cool, huh?

Gender gap in Obama approval

Posted elsewhere, but my words:

Okay, as a gal, I’ll give my $0.02, though I’m not sure its worth even that.

I’d suggest we look at the gender gap from the other direction. Rather than ask, “Why do women approve of Obama?” lets ask, “Why don’t men approve of Obama?” Frankly, I think its easier to answer. After all, Obama is a MAN.

I find it interesting that men are rejecting a man, particularly because men were more supportive of GBush than women. In other words, something about Obama turns men off — and something about Bush attracted men. What could it be?

Bush seemed masculine — at least from a woman’s perspective — and comfortable being masculine. He did guy stuff like clearing out the brush at his ranch. Can you imagine Obama clearing brush? Can you imagine him doing any physical labor? Something about Obama doesn’t seem right and men are picking up that off-scent. He’s just not comfortably male. Even his basketball playing seems … stilted.

Remember watching Bush walk to the presidential plane? He had a commanding walk. He oozed confidence. Masculinity. I think he drove the metrosexual media mad when he jumped from planes or showed up in Iraq.

Now note Obama’s walk. He seems to be trying to be authoritative. Trying too hard. He walks fast, but not confidently. Its more like he’s prancing than commanding.

As a woman, I rather like powerful, confident men. I remember watching Bush on tv and thinking he had a Reagan-like, genuine masculinity. I am blessed, however, by postive experiences with men. I’ve never been physically abused or mishandled and the few bad apples in my life were usually emotionally needy, not abusive. In short, I like men as men.

Many women don’t have such positive experiences with men. For them, a powerful man is threatening. They’d rather see a pseudo-male with a dominant/big wife than a strong man with a wife who knows to love him as he is. I see the support for Obama, among women, as an indicator of social dis-ease.

Although I don’t have any statistics to back up this claim, I’d wager that women who were raised in divorced homes, or with abusive parents, are most supportive of Obama. Conversely, women who were raised in happier, intact homes probably support a Bush-like president.

Similarly, women who are divorced, separated, abused, single or absent a good man in their lives will vote for the weakened male, the controllable Obama.

Remember when the MSM swooned over Obama? The most urban, divorced and metro reporters thought he was sexy, not slimy.

I’ve got a doctorate in history and am not a shrink, so take my psycho-babble with a grain of salt.

Conversing with Frank about Independent Voters

Frank,

I’m not as sanguine about the motives and thought-processes of the “middle,” but your interpretation does make much sense. Still thinking about your words …

The polarization of voters — Rs huddling around the R pole; Ds huddling around the L pole — could also be due to “rationalization” of political parties.

Back in the 1970s, in the pre-Carter years, boweevil (sp.?) democrats were conservative Southerners, but still Democrats. Their own particular history and (then) recent civil rights legislation pushed the white South into the Democratic party. The D party, then, was tempered by the political moderation of Southern conservatives.

Fast forward to 2009. Moderates in the D party, now called “Blue Dogs” are a pitiful minority. Moderates in the R party are also a slim minority. Few northeastern moderates remain in the R party.

“Rationalization” occurs when the party makes ideological sense and its adherents share some sort of cultural/political POV. That is to say, a political party composed of like-minded members is rationalized because the party stands for a set of ideas that somehow cohere.

Thus, Republicans, for the most part, have a set of beliefs that arise from a realistic (some say jaded) view of human nature. In their view, civil society bridles the human tendency to coerce or dominate others. Political action, then, should only take place when civil society breaks down to the point where order needs to be reestablished.

Dems, have a set of beliefs that flip between viewing ordinary Americans as stupid and needy and viewing people as innately good and perfectible. (There’s an incoherence to their “faith.”) The badness of humanity comes from contact with civil society — the social environment in which people are reared — and not from an innate tendency to dominate. To Dems, political action, then, should be ever-present and potent, both to coerce society as a whole to behave in ways Ds deem good, as well as to train individual citizens to counter the values of civil society.

These POV are incompatible, aren’t they? These incompatible ur-beliefs, in my wee opinion, divide Dems from Reps.

Now, back to the polling data. Yes, the data suggests a widening split between the D and R. But this makes sense. It mirrors what voters are thinking, perhaps subliminally or unconsciously. It mirrors those ur-values that inform political choices. It mirrors the widening gap between D and R.

But only recently have political parties reflected ur-beliefs; that is, only recently have political parties been rationalized. Today, Ds stand for their set of beliefs and Rs stand for their set of beliefs.

I rather doubt these party differences can be papered over. Differences between D and R are too innate and deeply rooted to be moderated or compromised. They’re just too important. Too constitutive of who we are and what we believe.

Thus, I see moderates/Independents as irrational. Independents are refusing to make the choice. THey’re refusing to see the irrationality in political compromise. For this reason, too, I see the moderate middle slowly disappearing as information becomes more widely spread and political discussion heats up. As they know more and think a bit, society will further bifurcate. Its just that people, Frank, can’t stand in intellectual quicksand. Eventually, they’ll seek stable ground. The parties represent that ground. They make sense.

Excuse my rambling.

I’m quite curious about your thoughts, Sir.

Kris

Independent Voters?

I have never understood the motive and mindset of Independent voters. In a partisan, bifurcated political universe, standing in the middle and refusing to choose sides seems a bit irrational. On another blog, I questioned a man I have never met -- Frank -- whose opinions and insight I deeply admire. Below is the text of my post and his response, as copied from Rightpundits.

Frank,

Respectfully, why do you assume that independent voters want a centrist? If the electorate is “ideologically split” then it follows, logically, that voters really want either a left or right candidate, not something in between? I still maintain that the centrist American is a myth.

Bipartisanship makes sense when the two parties aren’t far apart in important values or ideology. But when core beliefs diverge as widely as those between the Reps and Dems, bipartisanship means making convenient, unfelt alliances, as done in France or other multiparty states.

Though bipartisanship may APPEAR centrist, its only expedience, and the necessary compromise when one side can’t dominate.

Today, it seems that independents are:
1) Those with less political knowledge — to know is to bifurcate!
2) Those who feel estranged from mainstream culture (hippies come to mind)
3) Those whose political beliefs or worldview has been (fatally?) challenged and thus are moving slowly toward the opposing political party
4) Those with the emotional desire to rectify conflict — voting isn’t rational.
5) Those who can juggle nonsensical, irrational and conflicting political desires and somehow, after adding the R and D positions, come up with a net zero. Thus, independent is
neither R and neither D AND
both R and both D.
6) Those who need a label that keeps them from being defined by peers. In the workplace, for instance, often it is far wiser to describe oneself as a centrist and Independent.

Thanks for all you do, Frank. You surely make us think more deeply about the nuances of polling data.

K

Kristen,

Independents, as well as most democrats and republicans, really want things to be done. They want people to sit down together, negotiate in a serious way and come up with a compromise. They want a way to try to fix problems.

Independents want a give and take. It should be easy to come up with a compromise with healthcare. Portability, pre-existing conditions, insurance across state lines are three possible items that could and should be passed. Clauses that cancel a law if expectations are not met should be included. For example, if costs are not saved by “universal healthcare”, using an independent arbitrator that has been pre-determined (sounds like the CBO), then the plan is canceled.

I agree with most of your descriptions of independents but, as you can see from my paragraphs above, I think most independents fall into your categories 4 and 5. They want solutions.

Notice that the independents are increasing. The bi-partisanship of the candidate Obama is not the governing of the President Obama. Independents who had fallen away from the republican party are slowly drifting in that direction and the independents who had fallen to the “bi-partisan” mystique of the candidate Obama is now drifting towards the “independent” category again.

Watch the Rasmussen numbers with party ID. It isn’t self-indentified democrats that are becoming self-identified republicans, it a slow drift to the right.

On a ten point scale where 1 is a very left democrat and 10 is a very right republican, the following is occurring:

3’s (Obama voters) are drifting towards 4’s and 5’s. 5’s and 6’s are shifting toward 7’s and 8’s. What is occurring, however, is that more people are drifting from D to I than from I to R. That caused party ID to drop among democrats rather significantly (3-4 pts since inauguration) and republicans to gain only about a point of so.

Frank

Which way shall Republicans go?

I'm thinking through this here, online, so this post won't be coherent or orderly, but will emerge as my thoughts emerge ...haphazardly.  I just read an article about Rubio challenging Crist for the Florida US Senate seat.  Rubio is a clean-cut, Cuban-American.  He is young, articulate and fluent in spanish.  He's also very conservative.  

New Republican leaders are emerging, aren't they?  Rubio is one of the new, conservative faces.  What interests me, and is the subject of this posting, is the degree of conservatism among the new leaders compared to the old, such as Charlie Crist, the other contender for the same Florida Senate seat.

A logical tension exists between conservatives who lean libertarian and those who lean "paleo."  In most circumstances, this tension is kept under wraps.  Libertarian conservatives (conlibs) tend toward live-and-let-live attitudes on social issues.  Abortion doesn't usually move them.  Ditto for cap punishment, early notification, embroyo research, etc.  They are more than economic conservatives, however, and the MSM is wrong for pegging them as ONLY wanting laissez faire economics.  They don't.  They want the government out of daily life and daily life is far bigger than their job or pocketbook.  They want a restoration of property rights.  They want, hopefully, school choice.  Some want drug legalization, not so much to use drugs as to eliminate the culture of drug-caused crime in the inner city.  

Conpaleos, in contrast, seem to want the government to reflect the values of the majority.  At times, this is articulated as remaining faithful to the constitution as originally interpreted or intended (there is a difference).  So rather than backing away from making social legislation, conpaleos want the law to enshrine basic values which include opposing same-sex marriage, abortion and stem cell research.  These are basic life values which at an earlier time in our nation's history would not have been debated, but rather assumed.

With the loss of consensus, or at least the loss of a dominant and diluted ethical Protestantism, it has been difficult to point to values about which we can mostly agree.  Abortion is a case in point.  So are most social issues.  One wonders if the nation needs some time to digest its differences brought on, in a small part, by rapid immigration.  This is an argument for border closure, but only among conservatives of either stripe for whom moral values are a concern.

The Republican Party is the nation writ small.  It holds within it the tension between conpaleos and conlibs, or the tension between those who want to affirm what is left of our shared values and those who have given up on shared values and just want to be left alone.  I have no solutions for this division, but am only pointing it out.  Interestingly, in a way, the two flanks of the Republican party have arrived at similar policy positions -- sans abortion and other touchy social issues -- but from different starting points.  Libertarians reside within the Republican Party because the Democratic Party has renounced individualism as well as individual liberty.   Democrats are statists -- libertarians are anti-statist.  The conpaleos take a common-sense approach to statism, acknowledging its existence and trying to morph it into a force for good.

As an aside, I believe the tea partiers are libertarian, not conpaleos.  But this topic is for another posting ...

Thankfully, today is cooler.  Go outside, okay?  

Kristen