Updated July 28, 2016 9:08 AM
By Helmut Norpoth
THE BOTTOM LINE
Donald Trump may be lucky to
have picked an election in which change trumps experience.
When voters demand change,
they are willing to overlook many foibles of the change candidate.
To be sure, Donald Trump, is a
long shot in betting markets to win in November. PredictIt, a popular legal
wagering website, gives Hillary Clinton a 66 percent chance to win the
presidency. She has consistently led Trump in that market for three months, as
well as in the Iowa Electronic Markets. And Trump has trailed Clinton — with
rare exceptions — in the poll averages by RealClearPolitics and The Huffington
Post.
So how can a reasonable person
predict that Trump will be the next president?
For starters, pre-election
polls have selected the wrong candidate many times. Who can forget Tom Dewey
defeating Harry Truman in 1948 polls — until he didn’t? Or Michael Dukakis
leading George H.W. Bush in 1988 by 17 points this time of year? Or Mitt Romney
edging Barack Obama in the final Gallup poll four years ago?
My advice: Beware of pollsters
bearing forecasts, especially anyone trying to peek into the future, especially
those with money to bet.
Some 20 years ago, I
constructed a formula, The
Primary Model, that has predicted the winner of the popular vote in all
five presidential elections since it was introduced. It is based on elections
dating to 1912. The formula was wrong only once: The 1960 election. That one
hurt because John F. Kennedy was my preferred candidate.
The Primary Model consists of
two ingredients: The swing of the electoral pendulum, and the outcomes of
primaries.
You can see the pendulum work
with the naked eye. After two terms in office, the presidential party in power
loses more often than not. In fact, over the past 65 years, it managed to win a
third term only once. In 1988, President George H.W. Bush extended Ronald
Reagan’s presidency by one more term. Reagan made this possible by winning
re-election by a bigger margin than when he first got elected. That spells
continuity, a desire for more of the same.
President Barack Obama has not
left such a legacy for a Democratic successor. He did worse in his re-election
victory over Mitt Romney in 2012 than when he beat John McCain in 2008. That
spells, “It’s Time for a Change!” The pendulum points to the GOP in 2016, no
matter whether the candidate was named Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John
Kasich or whoever.
Now add the outcomes of
presidential primaries. Although some experts claim primary votes have no
bearing on general elections, the fact is that primaries prove uncanny in
forecasting the winner in November. Take the first election with a significant
number of primaries, in 1912. In November that year, Woodrow Wilson, the winner
in Democratic primaries, defeated William Howard Taft, the loser in Republican
primaries; Taft was renominated since most states then did not use primaries.
In general, the party with the stronger primary candidate wins the general
election.
This year, Trump has wound up
as the stronger of the two presidential nominees. He won many more primaries
than did Clinton. In fact, this was apparent as early as early March. Trump
handily won the first two primaries, New Hampshire and South Carolina, while
Clinton badly lost New Hampshire to Sen. Bernie Sanders before beating him in
South Carolina.
The Primary Model predicts
that Trump will defeat Clinton with 87 percent certainty. He is the candidate
of change. When voters demand change, they are willing to overlook many foibles
of the change candidate. At the same time, the candidate who touts experience
will get more intense scrutiny for any missteps and suspicions of misconduct of
the record of experience.
Trump may be lucky to have
picked an election in which change trumps experience and experience may prove
to be a mixed blessing.
Helmut Norpoth is the director
of undergraduate studies and political science professor at Stony Brook
University.
No comments:
Post a Comment