Archive
An Election Prediction a Year and a Half Out
Do not mistake this as endorsement or repudiation. I don’t really care one way or the other if Hillary Clinton gets elected President. Whatever happens, I’m sure the Republic will survive. But as an amateur pundit who watches politics like a ghoulish NASCAR fan watches car racing- waiting for the spectacular crash- I’m sorry to inform you that my prediction is fairly mundane: Hillary Clinton will be elected the next President of the United States.
It doesn’t matter how many scandals are brought up, dredged up, or created. It doesn’t matter how many Republican-backed books hit the best-seller lists on a monthly basis. Whitewater won’t matter. Monica Lewinsky will not matter. The State department e-mails will not matter. The Clinton Foundation and which foreign governments did or did not contribute to it will not matter. We don’t even need to get into the latest CNN poll that finds she is ahead by double digits against all the potential GOP candidates. Surely, that will narrow significantly.
But Hillary Clinton’s narrative is set. She has been such a long-time player in American political life that opinions about her are concluded, cemented, done and finished. The real question is this: Is the tiny number of American voters who have no opinion of Hillary Clinton larger than the roughly 2 to 3% margin that her positive ratings generally outpace her negative ratings?
The opposition will have a new attack line every month right up until Election Day. And every single time, regardless of the merits of the arguments, Hillary Clinton will call it predictable partisan vitriol and the slight majority that supports her will completely agree. Partisan attacks on Hillary Clinton will be eaten up like candy by the anti-Hillary faithful but will change not one single mind among her supporters and I’m not sure there are enough “undecideds” left to make any difference.
The Soft Launch
There was much criticism of the “soft launch” of the Hillary campaign. Many liberals and just about all conservatives, seemed to blanch at what they saw as the emptiness of her announcement video. She was waging identity politics, they argued, featuring nothing more than a cartoonish smorgasbord of African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Gays in her ad. She had no policy details whatsoever. Her vow to be the champion of the middle-class echoed hollow to the critics from the left and the right.
Politically/strategically- it looks like it pretty much did the trick. You could see it in the grudging back-handed compliments from the opposition’s punditry class. “Slick but empty,” was the common refrain from conservative commentators like Jennifer Rubin. What was noticeable was the recognition that the ad was actually pretty smooth. It was, like her or hate her, good packaging.
Politico had these quotes from Republican operatives in Iowa and New Hampshire, about Hillary Clinton’s soft launch:
“Honestly, I was very impressed,” said a top Iowa Republican…“She’s always been seen as cold. I think this helps warm her up for the general election. It also creates a soft launch for her.”
“She can be very hard to listen to speak, at times shrill, so this was refreshing and a little inspirational,” said a second Iowa Republican. “She knows she needs to earn people’s vote. It’s a smart way to brush off being the ‘anointed one.’”
“The drive to Iowa is the smartest play I’ve seen her make in a while,” declared a New Hampshire Republican.
A second Granite State Republican described the road trip as a masterstroke. “The campaign is, rightly, underplaying it and letting the social media activity promote her and her travels,” he said. “Really, really well played.”
But “where’s the beef?” Of course, this was all empty calories. That’s the nature of American politics. Joe McGinnis articulated it all quite nicely in the Selling of the President written in 1968. Forgive my cynicism, but when was the last time we expected any kind of substance at all from a politician? Besides, everybody knows Hillary Clinton is a total policy wonk and would greatly prefer noodling policy then actually campaigning. I would bet she’s being urged to NOT be that policy wonk, and instead is being counseled to be warm, approachable, humble, Grandmother-like (who doesn’t love grandmothers?) and also generic, non-specific and pure pabulum.
But does it really matter? Whether she articulates to the granular level or not on every issue known to man, don’t most folks have a pretty good sense that Hillary Clinton will govern quite differently than whoever the Republicans will nominate (Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker, is my current pick to get GOP nod)?
Keeping the Obama Block
Some argue she will never approximate the block of voters put together by the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012. I would concur. But she doesn’t need to get to that level in order to win. What she does need is a big turn-out election. While polls are currently finding there may be less novelty and fascination with a woman becoming President than may have been generally assumed- I don’t believe those numbers.
On the eve of election day next year, a woman standing on the precipice of the American presidency, taking the mantle of Commander-in-Chief for the first time in history, potentially elected as the leader of the free world- will be a really big deal. It will be historic in every sense of the word. As has become patently obvious in the last two elections, large turn-out amplifies the country’s changing demographics just as surely as low-turn-out, mid-term elections distort them.
It’s just a prediction ridiculously offered more than year and a half before the main event. A lesser margin than either of Obama’s victories, but a victory nonetheless.
Nate Silver’s Probabilities vs Peggy Noonan’s Feelings
Nate SIlver and Peggy Noonan
As part of the introspection that conservative partisans like Peggy Noonan are engaged in after the resounding reelection victory for President Obama Tuesday, surely one of the aspects of this exercise will be coming to the acceptance of the primacy of facts and research over emotion.
As conservatives started aiming their ire at New York Times numbers-cruncher, Nate Silver, in the closing weeks of the campaign, it is now apparent that all the froth was about what Silver was saying not the way he went about coming to his conclusions. They were shooting the messenger. And with every broadside, it seemed Silver would just keep upping Obama’s victory probabilities until by the final day, they had crested above 90%. And for the second Presidential election in a row, he was spot on, accurately predicting 50 out of 50 states (presuming Florida finishes where it is now).
Over at the Wall Street Journal, former Ronald Reagan speechwriter, Peggy Noonan, seemed to be mocking Silver’s nerdy numbers approach by predicting a Mitt Romney victory based on, among other things, the size of the Republican candidate’s closing crowds, their decibel levels, even her perception of how Romney lawn signs were outnumbering Obama’s.
There is no denying the Republicans have the passion now, the enthusiasm. The Democrats do not. Independents are breaking for Romney. And there’s the thing about the yard signs. In Florida a few weeks ago I saw Romney signs, not Obama ones. From Ohio I hear the same. From tony Northwest Washington, D.C., I hear the same.
She even magically entered the heads of the candidates at the annual Al Smith dinner in New York where she interpreted what she saw as an uncomfortable and distracted Barack Obama as someone who looked like they had just read disturbing data.
But sitting there listening to the jokes and speeches, the archbishop of New York sitting between them, Obama looked like a young challenger—flinty, not so comfortable. He was distracted, and his smiles seemed forced. He looked like a man who’d just seen some bad internal polling. Romney? Expansive, hilarious, self-spoofing, with a few jokes of finely calibrated meanness that were just perfect for the crowd. He looked like a president. He looked like someone who’d just seen good internals.
The remarkable thing about Noonan’s approach to political prognosticating, is that you’d think she’d know better by now. She’s had her hand in the political game for nearly half a century. Not that she’s alone in couching her hopes on imaginary factors she thinks she sees, like massive, noisy, huge campaign crowds at Republican rallies, advantages in political lawn signs, or someone’s demeanor sitting at a dais. It’s natural- it’s human to hope against hope.
Granted I was all of 16 at the time, but I remember feeling such hope for George McGovern in 1972. Surely, polls can be wrong. I mean, wow, 20 thousand people came out for him at one event or another. How could a decorated World War II Air Force veteran with such strength of character be losing to Richard Nixon, for Christ’s sake.
Not too dissimilar, I suppose, from a conservative partisan thinking how such a good, religious, responsible family guy like Romney could possibly be losing to the likes of Barack Hussein Obama, for Christ’s sake.
Well, McGovern, of course, would go on to win only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. and Mitt Romney would go on to lose every single swing state in the election except for North Carolina (and again, we await Florida).
The lessons here are obvious. Not that it really matters, of course, if pundits get their predictions right or horribly wrong- they are paid to bloviate no matter what. But if one wants to be accurate and be taken seriously again someday- it would be wise to keep emotions out of it.
It would be essential, I think, to not let your observations be colored by your tribal leanings. It might make sense to understand that 21st century polling, for example, is actually a science and that the study of statistical probability actually has an anchor in reality.
The trick for those who want to be in the business of predicting things, is learning to accept that the facts you see may not be what you wish they were. It’s human, even endearing to think that wishing can make things happen. But it’s not very professional.
Supreme Court Throws Health Care Forecasters a Curve Ball
Intertrade had rejection of the individual mandate of the health care law a 70% certainty. Most people had followed CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin’s take on the arguments that seemed to have gone so terribly wrong for the White House back in March. And they were all wrong.
President Obama has Chief Justice John Roberts to thank for saving the Affordable Care Act. Astoundingly, Roberts, who has voted 90% of the time with the other four Republican appointees, joined the court’s four liberal justices.
What many apparently discounted, was the extent that Roberts cares about political appearances. It took some intellectual gymnastics, but, in the end, it seems the Chief Justice wanted, at all costs, to preserve the integrity of the court against perceptions it had become a blatantly political body. Or, in the true meaning of the word “conservative,” he’s the kind of judge who believes it should be very difficult to alter existing law. Or both.
The gymnastics involved was the majority of the court labeling the “fee” that would be imposed on Americans who do not get health insurance a “tax,” a word that was never actually written in the legislation and a characterization which the President vehemently denied. But basically the court’s majority was saying, if the politicians were obviously afraid to call a tax what it really is- as NPR’s Nina Totenberg put it in her analysis of the court’s action, regardless, “If it looks like a tax and acts like tax, it’s a tax.”
And that’s key because there were five justices, including Roberts, who were of the opinion that a universally charged “fee” would have been a violation of the commerce clause of the constitution; they would argue you can’t force people from all 50 different states to pay a fee if they don’t get insurance. But a tax is different. The notion that the Federal government has the right to levy a tax has long been established.
The other part of the gymnastics that seems pretty conflicted is that there’s a law Congress passed that says courts don’t rule on the constitutionality of taxes until they are actually levied and this part of the health care law has not gone into effect yet. In this aspect of the case though, Roberts deferred to Congress’ assertion in the law that it is a fee, they instituted, not a tax. To justify this decision, Roberts had to kind of have it both ways.
So where to now? President Obama gets to explain to the American public what it is that the high court saved today- because his previous communication efforts with the nation in regard to the benefits of the health care law have been widely regarded as abysmal.
And, of course, what many have called his singular accomplishment as President remains intact. Mitt Romney said earlier in the week that rejection of the health care law by the high court would have meant Obama had wasted his first three years in office. That one’s out the window.
But Republicans will likely be all fired up by what they see as a slap in the face by the court. There will be symbolic but ineffective efforts in the House to repeal the law (the Democratic-controlled Senate will never go along). Mitt Romney will make it a mantra in every speech from now until November. Republicans will now be able to use “tax increase” against the President, and overall, it seems the court’s decision will further the stark nature of the choices voters face in November- namely- the role of government in our lives.
Finally, there was a lot of ridiculous speculation and forecasting about how this ruling would go. And you know which one ended up being 100% accurate? There’s a company that makes a business out of analyzing facial expressions. According to their analysis of the way the justices reacted on the bench during the arguments- there were five justices who smiled the most. The four liberals and Chief Justice John Roberts.
For whatever reasons he took the path he did, it would appear it is John Roberts who gets the last laugh.
2011 Predictions Gone Awry
I don’t know why people venture forth with predictions for the future. Maybe it’s that one in a thousand wild-ass guess that comes true that allows predictors to feel good about themselves. For some, like psychics, it’s a business.
Political Predictions
On the other hand, for some, like Karl Rove and William Kristol, who are paid to analyze politics, it’s dangerous territory. Rove, of course, predicted Sarah Palin would get into the Presidential race. He was apparently thrown off by that huge tour bus wrapped in the constitution with the big Sarah Palin signature on it, so he can be forgiven.
Kristol, who was once Vice President, Dan Quayle’s chief of staff- is just perpetually wrong about almost all things political. Wasn’t just his bold prediction (backed up by two sources!) that Rudy Giuliani would run for the White House this year. We all fondly remember his prediction three years ago that Barack Obama would not win a single primary against Hillary Clinton.
Sports Predictions
In the world of sports, we had two dream teams in 2011- the Miami Heat and the Philadelphia Eagles. Sports is one profession, where grandiose predictions about your own team tend to backfire because, see, word gets out among your competitors that you’re implying they’re all chumps which only feeds their desire to crush you. So when LeBron James predicted a half-dozen NBA titles, this was not well received by, among others, the NBA champion Dallas Mavericks.
It was Eagle’s back up quarterback, Vince Young, who remarking on the large number of expensive free agents Philadelphia signed up in the off-season, saw a dream team there in the city of brotherly love. The season ended ignominiously for the Eagles a couple of weeks ago with no playoffs but lots of talk about the potential firing of long time head coach, Andy Reid.
Psychic Predictions
My favorite erroneous or just plain hilarious predictions come from psychics. It’s a veritable treasure trove of goodies. We will leave out delusional pastors who twice called for the end of the world in 2011.
In the “Psychic to the Stars” category, a mantle claimed by some guy named Sydney Friedman and a woman named Nikki, we had the following from early 2011 looking at the year ahead.
From Sidney Friedman: “Lady GaGa becomes a teacher at a university. Maybe it’s just for a day or two, but she lectures at a school of higher learning.” I scoured the World Wide Web and this did not happen, though the University of South Carolina threatened to offer a course called Lady GaGa and the Sociology of Fame. Curiously enough, about a month before Friedman’s prediction,there were reports that she had applied to teach fashion and art appreciation at NYU.
Mr. Friedman also offered this gem: “This I truly hope does not occur: A major league baseball player inexplicably dies on the field.” Morbid and interesting- but wrong. Granted, entire teams died on the field in 2011, notably the Boston Red Sox and the Atlanta Braves who each blew historic divisional leads, but no one actually passed on to the hereafter on a baseball diamond.
From Nikki: 1) The Playboy Mansion will burn down; 2) Hillary Clinton will win the Nobel Peace Prize; 3) A gold rush will occur in Hawaii. No, no and no. Turns out there was an interview in which Rolling Stone band member, Keith Richards, said he once almost burned down the Playboy mansion. Hillary did not get the Nobel nod. And the only rush rumored to have hit Hawaii this year was the invasion of private investigators sent to the island by Donald Trump to look into Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Alas, that didn’t happen either.
Then there’s Craig and Jane Hamilton-Parker, who call themselves ‘Britain’s Best Psychic Couple’. They came out with the predictable prediction of the great California earthquake and that the Hollywood sign would be damaged. But my favorite: Tropical Island to be evacuated because of volcanic eruption. I’m no expert in plate tectonics, but cursory knowledge of these matters would tell you that, by nature, any island is a product of volcanic or seismic activity. That’s how they’re born. It would, therefore, not be unusual that some island, somewhere in the world might experience a volcanic eruption and that some people may have to be evacuated.
Finally, there are the Psychic Twins, Terry and Linda Jamison. They claim to have predicted the 9/11 calamity and have even appeared on The View. The twins boldly predicted that President Obama would not be re-elected in 2011. This, of course, actually did come to pass, because the election is not scheduled until November 6th, 2012. And even if you give them credit for having given us a bonus prediction for 2012, the odds on this, of course, are about 50/50.
Garcia Media Life 
Recent Comments