A few thoughts on the election
The press continues to write stories suggesting it is basically over, even as the betting markets show otherwise. Weird.
If Trump loses, there will be post-mortems claiming that Trump brought new people into the GOP, and that they need to appeal to these Trump voters in the future. Maybe, but I’m skeptical.
Let’s assume the current polls are correct. Trump is crushing Hillary in West Virginia by 24 points. Doesn’t that show his support among downscale white voters? The problem here is that snobby, elitist, don’t care about the 47% Mitt Romney won West Virginia by 26%. Downscale whites have been trending toward the GOP for decades. The real problem is that the GOP must win back the well-educated professionals of Virginia, which has turned blue as the hillbilly state trended red. To do that they need two things to happen:
1. The Dems must screw up.
2. The GOP must nominate a candidate that appeals to smart, non-racist/sexist, fiscal conservatives (both Republican and independent professionals).
Parties often take power just four years after being totally crushed by the voters (think 1932, 1968, 1976.) Trump will probably lose by about 6%. The GOP is still on track to win about 50% of the elections this century.
The race this most reminds me of is 1972. There was a candidate who was viewed (wrongly in my opinion) as being totally out of the mainstream, totally unacceptable. So much so that even many leaders in his own party abandoned him. The other candidate was seen as somewhat dishonest and corrupt, but people held their noses and voted for the lesser of evils. After the election, the winning candidate faced more and more disclosures of corruption, on an issue that was already apparent before the vote, but overshadowed by the controversial nature of the losing candidate. Then the economy got much worse, due to the statist policies of the winning candidate. The losing party came back to capture the White House in the next election, after crushing the opposition party in the midterms.
Will history repeat? Probably not, but FWIW, I do not believe that scandals are exogenous shocks. There are certain environments where scandal becomes an endogenous response to events. After wars, there may be a period when self-righteous people go after “enemies” (anarchists after WWI, commies after WWII, Nixon after Vietnam.) In France, they went after “collaborators” after WWII. If a scandal occurs when people are not in a scandal mood, then the impact is muted. People just didn’t want to hear about Harding’s problems in the booming 1920s, so the GOP won by a landslide in 1924. In 1998, people just didn’t want to hear about Clinton’s sex scandals, as the economy was doing great. So he dodged impeachment. Nixon was not so fortunate. I’m not trying to defend Nixon (one of our very worst Presidents, and especially corrupt) but there were also abuses of power under people like LBJ and FDR, but the public was not in the mood to hold them to account.
Hillary will face some difficult challenges. An economy that desperately needs supply-side reforms, and a party base under her that desperately wants to dramatically worsen the supply-side of the economy. Add in an opposition party that despises her.
I wish her good luck, but I still see a one-term president.
[This post was written before the recent FBI revelation. There is no longer any doubt in my mind that the stock market favors Hillary—stocks dropped suddenly on the news around 1pm, and Trump’s chances of winning are up to 23.5%. If I thought Hillary was likely to be impeached within six months, that would make me more likely to vote for her. Ditto for Trump.]
PS. This guy’s tweets are funny:
As a woman inches closer to the White House, news is dominated by sexual misconduct of her opponent, her husband and her aide’s husband.
Also check out the clip from the Big Lebowski (and classic early Cary Grant).
And some of the retweets:
Everyone thought the Anthony Weiner subplot was irrelevant, but the writers found a clever way to tie it to the main story’s season finale
Tags:
28. October 2016 at 12:11
(1) Long-term inflation expectations have gradually moved significantly higher.
(2) Consumer sentiment has gradually moved higher.
(3) Incumbent Presidents have inherent advantages in elections.
Based on those three data points, I think Hillary has about a 60% chance of reelection.
28. October 2016 at 12:12
‘ If I thought Hillary was likely to be impeached within six months, that would make me more likely to vote for her. Ditto for Trump.’
Then you should hope Trump wins, because, as David Gelertner recently wrote, Trump is an impeachment waiting to happen. With Hillary and 34 Democrat Senators, that won’t happen.
28. October 2016 at 12:23
TravisV,
(1) McCain
(2) Romney
(3) Trump
Based on those three data points, I think Hillary has about a 67% chance of reelection.
28. October 2016 at 12:23
There is no question either of the candidates will be one-termers. Both are quite old, and disliked, and can only win vs each other. In 4 years Trump won’t even run again (and may step down before 4 years are up). And even if he does, or Clinton does, just about any opposing candidate will beat either one of them. If there was some chance of an economic boom in the next 4 years that might change but there’s very little chance of that, and more likely a recession instead.
28. October 2016 at 13:25
I don’t know. The Republicans still have an Identity crisis. What are they for.
In the 1990’s the Wall St. Journal had a piece that suggested that the coalition that elected Ronald Reagan were unified against creeping socialism. But then they won. Socialism was a dead ideology. And the Republicans fractured into social conservatives and fiscal conservatives.
By the 1990’s what did Republicans agree on other than tax cuts?
Funny thing, W was the biggest socialist we had had in a generation. Pro-Farm subsidy, Pro trade protectionism, Keynesian economic model. Created a new governmental department, expanded spending, etc.
But O is a socialist, too. The libertarians / free marketeers are out in the cold. And the anti-immigrant and anti-gay tone of the current Republicans is pushing them off to join the Democrats.
Perhaps Democrats are where the Republicans were 25 years ago, but not as aware of it. They are an alliance of “liberals” and “leftists.”
Liberals are fundamentally capitalist, and pro-individual rights, but see the need to soften some of the more ruthless aspects of unbridled capitalism. Leftists see an unjust power imbalance and are open to radical means to correct it.
The best hope for the Republicans right now, seems to be if the Democrat’s coalition fractures.
28. October 2016 at 13:37
> and a party base under her that desperately wants to dramatically worsen the supply-side of the economy.
Yep.
The 2 reasons I think HRC (if elected) will be a one term president.
1. Many of my friends on the left seem to think now is the time to move the party more left. They see the last 8 years as being too centrist.
2. Age. I think there’s a good chance she has no plans on running again.
This assumes the right can get their shit together. Perhaps Nikki Haley will run. She seems unbeatable in a general election.
(Note: This is the opinion of someone who lives in an area that will go about 95% to HRC, so I really am far removed from reality.)
28. October 2016 at 14:08
If congress were not so corrupt some Democratic congressmen would get together with the republicans and Comey and agree to impeach Hillary R Clinton right after her inauguration and let Kaine become POTUS.
The stuff the Clintons did may not be more than minor law breaking but the Podesta emails show that they did many unethical things.
28. October 2016 at 14:44
It’s a basic math problem.
1. The GOP is steadily losing support among Latinos. Bush got roughly 40% of Latino votes in 2004. McCain got 31%. Romney got 27%. Trump might dip into the teens.
2. The Latino population is growing quickly in what were once fairly reliable red states. Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, etc. Texas is already majority-minoritiy.
None of this is news to anyone who follows this stuff but the Republican party will cease to be nationally viable unless they can find a way to appeal to Latinos.
They might be able to bounce back in 2020 against a weak incumbent but by 2024 I don’t see how the GOP can win in places like Colorado or North Carolina.
Does anyone see Minnesota becoming a reliably red state? Michigan? Wisconsin?
If not, where are they supposed to pick up the missing electoral college votes?
28. October 2016 at 15:24
I still wonder what the motivation of Hillary is. For men the motivation often seems to be sexual. Just think about Clinton, Trump, Weiner (perfect name), Strauss-Kahn, Sarkozy, Hollande, Schroder, Brandt, JFK.
For Hillary money seems to be really important. She’s risking her career over and over again just for a few dollars more. I never understood how she got away in the email scandal in the first place. The recent development might be the last lifeline for Trump.
28. October 2016 at 16:05
“The real problem is that the GOP must win back the well-educated professionals of Virginia”
-It would be much better for the fate of the entire country and the entire world if they were all killed in a nuclear airstrike. The country would be relieved that they were gone. Virginia could be made Great once again.
Beltway hacks are generally vile people who have nothing but corruption and evil in their hearts. The swamp must be drained.
“The GOP must nominate a candidate that appeals to smart, non-racist/sexist, fiscal conservatives (both Republican and independent professionals).”
-Like Willard Sh*t Rmoney? I f**king hated Willard Sh*t Rmoney! And he couldn’t even do his job! He didn’t win New Hampshire; he didn’t even win Oakland County, MI (where he won over 50% in a primary in a state he nearly lost to a guy named Santorum)!
“Trump will probably lose by about 6%.”
-No chance. This race is gonna be within 4 points.
“The race this most reminds me of is 1972.”
-The economy is not booming, Trump will win more than one state, and a wildly popular president is not on the cusp of re-election.
“There is no longer any doubt in my mind that the stock market favors Hillary”
-I think this was due to the Wikileaks revelations about Her amenability to tax breaks, as well as Her showcasing Her support from “real billionauhs”, as well as Trump’s promises to “drain the swamp”.
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/10/hillary-clinton-privately-pitched-corporations-on-really-low-tax-rate-for-money-stashed-abroad/
28. October 2016 at 16:29
“Bush got roughly 40% of Latino votes in 2004. McCain got 31%. Romney got 27%.”
-True! And this is not necessarily a bad thing.
“Trump might dip into the teens.”
-He won’t. Bush I nearly did in 1988 (look at which counties were most pro-Dukakis).
“The Latino population is growing quickly in what were once fairly reliable red states. Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, etc. Texas is already majority-minoritiy.”
-The obvious solution seems to be to stop the Latino population from growing. Hm, what politician could I look for who is most likely to make that happen?
“None of this is news to anyone who follows this stuff but the Republican party will cease to be nationally viable unless they can find a way to appeal to Latinos.”
-This is DC Beltway insider BS. It was BS in 2000, BS in 2004, BS in 2008, and BS in 2012. The Republican party will cease to be a nationally viable party if it becomes confined to a certain geographical region, like the Democrats did during the 4th Party System. This does not seem to be happening, though it easily could have had Cruz won the nomination.
“Does anyone see Minnesota becoming a reliably red state? Michigan? Wisconsin?”
1988: “does anyone see California becoming a reliably Democratic state? New Jersey? Connecticut?”
“There is no question either of the candidates will be one-termers.”
-Not “no question”. But you’re probably right.
28. October 2016 at 16:44
America had wrongly ceded manufacturing to other countries, she said, and allowed trade deals to hurt workers.—Hillary Clinton as interviewed by the excellent George Packer, New Yorker.
One prominent Brit said about their Q3 GDP, “the Brexit brakes are off.”
Orthodox macroecnomists need to ponder if trade and immigration policies, as implemented and in context, are positives for populations in developed nations. “In context” includes the reality of artificially constrained housing stock.
If we want open borders, is a prerequisite a ban on property zoning?
“Please step aside for the bulldozers. Due to the imperatives of global free trade (including labor) property zoning in your neighborhood and everywhere is banned. Thank you.”
Well we like global free markets, no?
28. October 2016 at 17:51
@Doug M
The Right needs to win the term “liberal” back. It’s a bit weird, in the US right-wing people are often using the term “liberal” to denounce leftists while in Europe it’s exactly the other way round: Leftists use the term to denounce right-wing policies. Then again “neoliberal” is mostly used by leftists on both sides of the Atlantic to attack right-wing politicians. Lesson: Don’t try to apply logic in politics.
28. October 2016 at 20:26
Liberal, as in beleiving in liberty. Also means generous.
FDR was the one that tried to change the meaning of Liberal (big L vs. small L), to describe his social policies, and the right turned the term into a pejorative (much like they are using Social Justice as a pejorative in very recent years).
In the US there are a few of us who use the term “classical liberal,” which is pretty darn conservative on many issues.
29. October 2016 at 06:18
I just just finished reading a book on the Mossad. After reading the many true life stories, like Nasser’s son-in-law was a Israeli spy…etc, it really makes you wonder what is really going on. I am sure that some of these conspiracy stories on the Internet are probably true. The tabloids are full of stories of Huma Abedin being an Arab spy, that the ISIS religious leader is a Mossad agent, etc, etc…I am also sure that most are just tabloid garbage. Like in the red scare, it seems like people are more and more likely to believe these. They are also likely to believe all types of environmental and health claims without any scientific merit. Whether it is fluoride, immunizations, fracking, etc. I had a conversation with an intelligent person I work with who really believed that all the water in western PA had been contaminated and would burn if you lit it….
So it is no wonder that someone like Donald Trump would get nominated…it is just as likely to have been Lyndon LaRouche figure on the left (or a Jill Stein or for that matter Bernie Sanders)
The right needs to establish itself as the party of reason and intellect again. Clinton, for all her failings and insider Clinton Inc corruption and baggage, has been able to caste herself as the voice of reason and that is why she will win.
29. October 2016 at 08:36
“The GOP is still on track to win about 50% of the elections this century.”
Haha, you’re killing me!
How did the median voter model work in Mexico in the 20th century? If Trump doesn’t win this, GOP will never win again. Demographics is destiny, as they say.
29. October 2016 at 09:43
Doug, You said:
“Socialism was a dead ideology.”
Yes, it was dead. But it’s coming back now. The majority of white Democratic primary voters voted for a socialist.
29. October 2016 at 09:44
Justin, I’m not using the median voter model.
29. October 2016 at 10:19
Great new post by Kevin Erdmann:
http://idiosyncraticwhisk.blogspot.com/2016/10/liberal-society-depends-on-presumption.html
“Liberal society depends on the presumption of rights”
29. October 2016 at 10:20
Great stuff by Jonathan Haidt:
http://www.humansandnature.org/the-ethics-of-globalism-nationalism-and-patriotism#.WBPBovqz_aZ.twitter
29. October 2016 at 11:48
I predict between 348 and 353 for Trump. I’ve been on this prediction for about the last two months. Early voting is suggesting it will come to pass. An issue is that my estimates on turnout/share of some demos is pretty conservative. Using liberal estimates, states like Illinois, Jersey, Washington, and Delaware start turning red, 353 may be too conservative.
29. October 2016 at 11:52
Harding, why do you think it will be within 4 points? Considering early vote news and a sensible estimate of turnout, A ~51.5% win for Trump is pretty conservative.
30. October 2016 at 07:20
@Steve F
In what kind of world are you living? Hillary got at least 270 very sure already (>90%). And this hasn’t changed now since weeks.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html
30. October 2016 at 07:37
“The GOP must nominate a candidate that appeals to smart, non-racist/sexist, fiscal conservatives (both Republican and independent professionals).
Parties often take power just four years after being totally crushed by the voters (think 1932, 1968, 1976.) Trump will probably lose by about 6%. The GOP is still on track to win about 50% of the elections this century.”
I think it’s likely that the GOP will do what you suggest and nominate a sane candidate, but there’s a caveat. Weren’t all those elections, except 1976, before the current primary system? Meaning elites had more influence on the outcome.
What concerns me about the Republicans is the potential for an adverse death spiral. That is, Trump drives “smart, non-racist/sexist, fiscal conservatives” away from the party, forcing future primary candidates to appeal to more extreme elements, driving more primary voters away, in a vicious cycle. Then the Republicans become a regional party like the Federalists, and smart, ambitious Republican politicians with national ambitions are forced to become Democrats – similar to when John Quincy Adams became a Democratic-Republican with his father’s blessing.
I’m not predicting this will definitely happen, but I think the odds of this are non-negligible, perhaps 30%. The 2020 Republican primary is going to be very important. The leadership of the Republican party is going to have to find ways to reform the process if they are going to save the party.
30. October 2016 at 16:30
That is, Trump drives “smart, non-racist/sexist, fiscal conservatives” away from the party, forcing future primary candidates to appeal to more extreme elements…
Ironically, this seems unlikely mostly because the Democrats missed the opportunity to appeal to these sort of folks too. If they’d moved to the center, they could have potentially scooped up lots of socially liberal but fiscally conservative Rs. Which, truly, is most Rs.
Another way to put this is that it’s just as possible that the Democrats race to the fringe. Arguably, you could say they’re closer than the Republicans to their fringe of being beholden to big city pork, the rent-seeking sector, and academic nitwits.
30. October 2016 at 18:26
Thanks Travis, Those two are always worth reading.
SteveF, You said:
“Using liberal estimates, states like Illinois, Jersey, Washington, and Delaware start turning red, 353 may be too conservative.”
Trump may well win, but if he wins these four states it would be a shock. I would eat my hat, if I had one.
Negation, It depends whether Trump’s support was based on issues or personality. My hunch is that someone else running with those views would not have done well. GOP voters are likely to get tired of losing.
1. November 2016 at 07:45
Sumner, can you comment on Peter Thiel’s recent speech in favor of Trump? Thiel seems to present a very reasonable, intelligent, strong case for Trump:
https://youtu.be/ob-LJqPQEJ4
1. November 2016 at 12:29
Sumner says Trump is racist. So, even at the National Review, even their hardline Never-Trump writers will admit that the rise of white identity politics is a defensive reaction to more full throated anti-white identity politics from the left.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/439150/white-identity-politics-wrong-and-immoral
Does Sumner have any response to that? Is the full throated anti-white identity politics from the left somehow not racist?
2. November 2016 at 07:53
Massimo, Some of it is racist—as you know I am no fan of campus PCism.