The Science In Political Science

The Quest To Know The Future

As much as it seems absurd to predict the future, there are those who can't resist.  This election season, American University professor Allan Lichtman and his 13 Keys To The White House, which have been curiously correct since 1984, foresee a Trump victory--although last month it was Clinton.

Here's what his prediction is based on (if six or more of these factors are false, the incumbent party will lose)

1 Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.

2 Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination

3 Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president

4 Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign

5 Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.

6 Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

7 Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.

8 Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term

9 Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.

10 Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

11 Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

12 Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

13 Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

Blue numbers are those that Lichtman thinks point to Clinton.  Red point to Trump.  The incumbent party needs eight.

Except, ...this is awfully subjective.  Just for kicks, here are the keys that could easily turn the other way (depending on the election outcome):

1. (most likely): 4. Third Party.  Gary Johnson currently has around 9% in most polls.  Jill Stein has around 4%.  In order for these numbers to mean a red key, they have to be 5% or more on Nov. 7th.  That's a tall order, since most 3rd Party candidates lose their altitude as the election nears.

2.  7. Policy Change.  The problem here is how does one determine what constitutes "major national policy change".   Lowtechcyclist, a commenter on the Political Animal blog makes the point  that ObamaCare only took effect--with a falling uninsured rate--in 2014, meaning it was part of the incumbent party's most recent term.  Another point: most Americans know that Climate Change is a serious problem, perhaps the most serious one we face.  And who got the ball rolling, with executive orders on car mileage, emissions from power generation, etc.?  Obama, in his second term.

3. 1. Party Mandate.  Speaking of executive orders, there's the question of whether aggressive opposition to all Obama initiatives in Congress has meant that the natural flow of accomplishments can't be accurately gauged.   In fact, if one looks at the percent of the raw vote that the Democrats won, as opposed to the number of seats they held, they actually did better in 2014 than in 2010, which would turn key #1. 

4. 11.  Foreign Policy Success.  Again with Climate Change.  There's also the gradual drawdown of troops overseas, the rehabilitation of American standing in the world, even the Iran nuclear proliferation deal.

5. (least likely) 12. Incumbent Charisma.  If one looks at this from the perspective of voters who'll be eager to elect the first woman president, that may be something akin to charisma.  

In fairnesss, the professor has predicted the outcome ahead of time in each case, beginning in 1984.  I can remember reading his book in the late '80s. 

















ccccccc

Me, Reading

Photo From April 23rd, 2016

When I've finished that book on the living room table, I'll update this.  Actually, I haven't even started reading "Huck Finn's America".  I'm currently reading the Annotated Huckleberry Finn (about 20% in).  So, a work in progress. 

,

Chin Strokers -- Clinton, Trump

A Few Ideas

1. Clinton's Likely Pivot 

As a rule, we find it easy to learn lessons from the recent past.  The Iraq war, for example, followed the no-US-casualties contest in the Balkans, and the relatively easy success of the Kuwaiti push-back in '91.  So, given President Obama's skillful skewering of his opponent, early on in the summer of 2012 (the ads came early and hit hard, pointing to Mitt Romney's having laid off middle-class bread winners), Hillary's ad campaign this summer made sense.  Donald Trump was unacceptable, and here's why.

Was that a smart thing?  I certainly don't know.  But one could make the point that Romney was a relatively mainstream candidate, so that a campaign that pointed out his unacceptability made sense.  Given a candidate like Trump, though, who is obviously winging it, the crucial point might instead be: Is Clinton exciting enough?

Pundits keep returning to the old saw that 2016 is a 'change election', suggesting that Clinton is too much a member of the establishment and that perhaps voters will turn to Trump as a result.  Sorry, but the power of a female--the first, will mean a dramatic 'change' that we haven't even begun to grasp.

Meaning there's a likely pivot for Clinton to make: away from the male-oriented compare-this-guy-to-that ad.  Ideally, her new ads would paint quick pictures using real-life human experience--showcasing what could be done to improve individual circumstances.  Together, these problem solving vignettes would implicitly make the case that Hillary represents progress and a remarkably progressive agenda.  Inspiration is what'll make the difference when several million half-hearted voter efforts either succeed or fail on Nov. 7th.

2. Birther Bungle

The birtherism debacle of a week ago is the sort of win-win-win for Clinton that can allow her to overcome just about any minor flub, like her 3-days off the campaign trail after falling ill.  How was it a win-win-win?  Trump was defined as wildly unreasonable, and way outside the mainstream.  Obama fans were reminded why they needed to vote.  And the media got a major reminder of how Trump would wrap them around his little finger if they let him.

3. The Unexpected

Hillary has an opening that she may or may not notice--we shall see.  With attention focused on Trump recently (aside from Clinton's illness and her "basket of deplorables" jibe), she hasn't received much attention.  She could make a huge splash that yanks attention away from Trump's patter. What if she said: 
"People think I'm untrustworthy, and that I lie.  But, you know what?  That's because I have to think twice about what I say.  I hesitate when I speak.  And you know why that is?  Because ever since I entered public life I've been hounded by a few unscrupulous manipulators of the truth.  Well, I'm not going to let them get the better of me.   At the end of this press conference my campaign will release a blow-by-blow explanation of how my detractors over the years have convinced the press that I am "untrustworthy".  In actuality, compared to my opponent, you know exactly where I stand on the issues.  And as a mother (pause) and a woman (pause), you can trust that I'll put your interests ahead of my own.  That is trust."

It's True, I Started Blogging in 1983

My Paper-And-Ink Newsletter: Treetop Panorama

If you told me, 33 years ago, that in a quarter century I'd still be publishing my own writing, but breaking even, and could read other writers who I admired, also for free, I'd think that a wonderful thing.

The photos below, showcasing my Spring 1987 issue, give you a sense of how good I got by the time I quit, a few years later.  I employed artists, writers, even a calligrapher--though all on a very small scale, of course.  My two issues a year each cost about $500 to put out, with subscriptions ($3.25 per year) paying for anything beyond that.   I wrote nearly all the copy, then glued the available artwork and poetry I'd commissioned onto my typewritten pages, added some layout touches, then left off my manuscript at P.A.M. Printers in town.  I'd then pick up the double pages, collate, staple, fold and stick the assemblage together with a adhesive dot, add a stamp, an address, and mail them.  At one time I even rented a mailing list.

                                                                    Front page

                                       A poem & drawing

                              A taped interview with a neighbor

                                 An American history quiz

             Back Page (poem is riff off commissioned artwork)

Writing for fun--as opposed to trying to get people to subscribe--is a lot more enjoyable.  I think I'd be quite pleased, back then, with how things turned out.  I miss the poetry, illustrations and layout work, but I can now access full color--if I want; I've no deadlines (my 8/31 post was worked on for a good ten days); and there's even space for comments if things get outrageous enough to warrant them.  And I haven't had to cut back on the prescriptive politics--which drove me to 'blog' back in '83: I believe it was President Reagan's invasion of Grenada that fired up the pen back then.

And while I find my younger self's writing embarrassing at times, that's how most people would feel. 

And in case you're wondering, no, that's no longer my address, above.  

Local Pics

                               Celebrating a 100-year-old school and its community

                           A photo collection from September 10th, 2016, and as noted when otherwise:

                                       100-year-old grade school (orange roof) at a distance (8/29/14)

                              Dawn, on my way to work, 8/30/16; school 100 yards on left

Dad speaks with grandsons of Elizabeth and Mary Seymour, sisters of Charles, school's namesake (Alex on left and Barr on right).

    

Dad in the Nancy Scarborough house, when it was for sale (4/29/15).  Built in 1838, with wood                        bought in Cincinnati by the original Jared Scarborough.

                                                  Dad at the stone arch bridge, 11/4/2014.

                              Me, further downstream, 7/24/2015, photo by niece Charlotte.

                                                          Dad, at cemetery, 8/20/2016

                   Brother Tad / cousin Leslie, decorating mother's / aunt's tombstone, 8/20/16

                                           Dad, greeting visitors at Congregational church.

                 Dad with 19th century maple and town square bandstand (built by Seymours)

                                                  Church interior.  Notice spare decor.

                                            Dad with 19th century organ--excellent sound.

                                                         Mullein on stairs, 7/22/2016

                                                             Ironweed,  8/7/2016

                                                       Volunteer strawberry, 8/7/2016

                                               Pawpaw foliage with tiger lilies, 7/20/2016

Handicapping -- 2016 Presidential Candidates

Hard To Beat

Since this summer's political conventions, the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, has enjoyed something like a 4 - 8 point lead over the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, a pattern I think is likely to continue.  And since I follow the electoral process fairly closely, I feel fairly confident in handicapping the election in extended detail.  I'll use a scale of 1 - 10 with ten being best:

Gravitas
Clinton: 5  (knows when to be serious, when to be amused)
Trump: 4  (his 'serious' is almost always over-the-top)

Preparation
Clinton: 8 (fluent with positions, hedges where minefields threaten)
Trump: 4 (own intuition is risky strategy, but it conveys certainty)

Inspiration
Clinton: 5 (historical first will provide some lift)
Trump: 7 (if he were informed, with discretion, his charisma = huuge thing)

Surrogates
Clinton: 8 (Bill, Barack, Bernie, Biden, Elizabeth and Michelle)
Trump: 3 (Mike Pence, Ivanka, and... Chris Christie)

Finances
Clinton: 8 (she won't be denied)
Trump: 5 (he hasn't used his own money--perhaps a good move)

Organization
Clinton: 9 (using Obama's targeting approach)
Trump: 5 (setting expectations low, relying on rallies, free media)

Campaigning
Clinton: 3 (admits she's not particularly good at it)
Trump: 9 (his rallies energize the faithful, attract free media)

Debating
Clinton: 5 (experience and focus; but a hesitant, careful speaker)
Trump: 9 (being 'unprepared' just a fake to set low expectations)

Add 'em up and you have:

Clinton: 51
Trump: 46
plus,
Johnson: 3
Stein: <1

If Homer Framed Marge

"But In The End Truth Will Out" - William Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice

If you've watched The Simpsons as much as I have, the idea that Marge Simpson (the show's mom) would be guilty of anything beyond a petty mistake is preposterous.  She's as normal a character on the show as any.  And she almost always plays by the rules.

Imagine: Hillary Clinton as Marge.  Can you?  Why not?  Most people would probably say that Hillary can't be trusted the way Marge can.  But what if Homer were to frame Marge, and the evidence seemed impossible to ignore... until the program's final few minutes when all's revealed.

If Hillary's public career were equivalent to such an episode of The Simpsons, Hillary's untrustworthiness would build from 1991 to 2016, but would then evaporate in a mighty flash about now (26 years plus another 4 years as president = 30-year career = 30-minute show).

I herewith expose the unfair framing that drove Hillary's trustworthy numbers into the ground.  And that issue is of course the e-mails on her personal server from when she was Secretary of State.  The latest revelations from that 'scandal' exonerate her completely in my mind, and furnish us with the ultimate Marge Simpson plot twist:

  *** When she apologized for using a private server she claimed that this happened 

          because she wanted to carry only one device, rather than two--one for official 

          business and one for personal calls.  At the time, this sounded fishy to me; but,

          if you click the above link, it pans out.
  *** And the multiple phones it turns out she used?  She used 16 phones over the course
          of four years, but they were used consecutively, perhaps as a precaution to avoid
          bugging  

  *** The 'classified' e-mails at the heart of the matter?  They were messages her
          subordinates were sending her.  Most were being written in real time (with the
          sender omitting any perceived secrets) and had not yet been deemed classified
          or not.
  *** The one except to this, in over four years of messages, was at the lowest level
          of classification, had already been classified prior to sending, and was indeed
          improperly sent.  But to my mind, it was the exception that proves the rule:
          every human will goof occasionally.

This e-mail 'scandal' turned out to be a nothingburger, but only after seriously compromising Hillary Clinton's public standing.  And that, of course, is the pattern.  Because her husband did in fact engage in unfortunate personal behavior when president, and because that behavior only came to light because of an investigation into yet another 'scandal' that wasn't, the press is inclined to look closely into the Clintons' affairs, even if Hillary herself has never been found to be seriously wanting.

Where might all this lead?  Because her formative years were spent as a lawyer, she is very unlikely to  have seriously slipped up--since there was so much at stake.  So, there's likely little more for her detractors to hit her with.  More likely is a gradual realization on the part of our most prominent journalists that this pattern of false accusations not only plays into a charge of sexism, but is unfair in a political sense, and must be idled.    

Looking At The Loser Candidates -- 2016 Edition

Patriarchy Watch

If we vote Hillary Clinton into office as our 45th president, several alternative candidates will be left by the curb for pick-up.  What happened to them?  What would explain the ruins of their campaigns?

1.  Gary Johnson / William Weld, Libertarian.  The one candidacy that could conceivably still win for losing is the Libertarian ticket.  If their usual 1% in elections past becomes 5% or more, they have automatic ballot access in the 2020 contest: a win.
Optimistic Outlook: If the Republicans (see below) opt for a hollowed out rump, casting off all but the pure ideologues who 1) fear God, 2) carry guns, and 3) see conspiracy to their left, the cast out refugees from the Republican fever swamps would likely become Libertarians--absent any centrist alternative.  So, building on a 5+% result in 2016, the party could then nominate a William Weld in 2020 on a modified platform emphasizing realistic goals.  This would mean the party could conceivably vie to become second-most popular, matching the Republicans' 30% slice of the electorate, and, as a result, would become a key source of innovation in politics.
Pessimistic Scenario: the Republican party leaves its recent past behind, returning to a Jack Kemp centrism.  The Libertarian tendency to embrace simplistic solutions (open all borders, decriminalize all drugs, privatize Social Security, eliminate environmental regs) results in their usual 1-2% in 2020.

2.  Jill Stein / Ajamu Baraka, Green.  Paradoxically, the Greens are the most dependent on how the other parties shake out, even more so than the Libertarians.  A large majority of their natural base sees the folly of throwing away votes on a party likely to get at most 1%, and instead vote Democrat.
Optimistic Outlook: If the Libertarians or some other third party were to break open the duopoly of Red/Blue in American politics, the Greens could conceivably become competitive.  Let's say the Libertarians became a relatively centrist alternative to the Democrats and the Republican rump circled the wagons on the right.  The left would then, conceivably, open up.
Pessimistic Scenario:  Same old same old.  Doomed to marginal results at best; spoiler status at worst.

3.  Donald Trump / Mike Pence, Republican.  If the election were an episode of The Simpsons titled 'Bart v. Lisa', the cowabunga dude would talk a good game, but would fritter away his time cleverly pranking Moe's Tavern ("I need to talk to Amy Hurl, please").  Meanwhile, Lisa would have many thoughtfully prepared positions all ready to go, and would be the obvious choice.
Sure, Bart--like his dad--sees the light once in a while, but time and again just can't let go...of boyhood.  Likewise, no matter how many campaign managers tell him what to say, Trump simply can't let the trickster go.  Like Bart, his cleverness revels in the neato sleight-of-hand and turn-of-phrase that attract attention.
Optimistic Outlook: As I 'll explain below, Republican chances for redemption are discouraging.  A best case would be a sound thrashing for Trump, and for the Republican graybeards to organize around a much more centrist candidate for 2020.  Unlikely, since those out of touch with reality are prone to repeat the same mistakes.
Pessimistic Scenario: Due to a rousing debate performance, plus opposition research, Trump is able to salvage a relatively close, Romney-esque defeat, or do even better.  This leads to yet another boner-prone wannabe strongman to re-mix the drunk skunk recipe.

Conclusions
What all three loser parties will have in common, post-election--assuming Hillary victorious--is an inferior grasp of where a winning strategy lies.  And if we revisit the male and female archetypes we've been discussing over the past three posts, we'll see where each party likely fails.
   * Male: comparative, leading to an ideal
   * Female: positive, contextual networking

Patriarchy can be obvious.  For example: Trump's reliance on the male mindset to the exclusion of positivity (belittling as a tactic), context (his rallies could occur anywhere, as opposed to Hillary's thematic campaign stops), and networking (generally, he doesn't mix with supporters, and has a hard time listening to others' opinions).  Instead, he likes to compare his performance (polls, crowd size, zingers) and supposed winning streaks (wealth, conquests, brand).

Patriarchy can be much less obvious, in fact hidden--even taking the feminine form.  For example: Jill Stein is a woman, but the Green platform is comparative, identifying ideal positions, irregardless of political context.

Likewise, the Libertarians identify ideological answers, then apply them to contexts in which they won't fit in a politically successful way.

Here, then, is the big surprise.  Hillary Clinton represents feminism, not because she advocates the most radical approach to rectifying the injustice of sexism (what most people think of as 'feminism'), but because her positive, contextual, networking campaign is feminist in spirit.