The Fundamentals

Election outcomes are mostly determined by the fundamentals rather than by the candidates or the campaigns. And as you can see in Gallup's polling data above the fundamentals are good. They further observe that "The Democratic advantage is even greater when taking into account the partisan leanings of independents . . . 11-point gap in partisan leaning is the largest Gallup has observed since it began regularly measuring partisan leanings in 1991, topping the previous high gap of 10.2 points from last year . . . Democrats not only maintained but increased their partisanship advantage over the Republicans in 2007, at a time when the ranks of independents were also swelling in the mid-phase of the two-year party ID cycle."

Comments

And as you can see in Gallup's polling data above the fundamentals are good.

As good, it appears, as in 1988, when we elected the Democrat George HW Bush. And not as good as 1996, when we re-elected WJC.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 6, 2008 10:35 AM

Let's not forget 2000, when we elected the great Democrat George W Bush because the fundamentals were strongly on our side.

Posted by aretino | March 6, 2008 10:39 AM

I don't know if its all fundamental- George I won in 1988 with a dem advantage of 4.8 an d lost in 1992 with a dem advantage of 5.2. Maybe Dukakis really did suck enough to change the fundamental. Maybe the key is movement - dem advantage goes up in years they do well.

Posted by The Craig | March 6, 2008 10:42 AM

It's interesting, although not surprising, that according to this graph, Republicans gain a partisan advantage only during times of war and conflict. For instance, the 1991 gain would have come right after the Gulf War and the 2002-04 gain would come in the wake of 9/11 and the first initial military success of Afghanistan and Iraq. So, unless Bush cooks up some war with Iran or Syria in the next 8 months (unlikely, but certainly not impossible), the Democratic candidate looks to start off with quite a natural advantage.

Posted by Jacob | March 6, 2008 10:44 AM

The analysis seems to suggest that many GOP identifiers are now calling themselves Independents. The Democratic numbers aren't rising. Running McCain is probably the best way to get those drifters back into the GOP fold.

Posted by Eddy Elfenbein | March 6, 2008 10:45 AM

The Democrats have had this fundamental advantage for nearly all of my life (40 years). It obviously doesn't translate into presidential wins.

Posted by fostert | March 6, 2008 10:50 AM

Whatever. Go read Foser over at Media Matters and Glennzilla and then tell me how McCain doesn't win or at the very least "win." It's over. We're doomed.

Posted by ed | March 6, 2008 10:51 AM

I agree with the earlier comments that the chart completely refutes Matt's premise.

Posted by right | March 6, 2008 11:11 AM

Election outcomes are mostly determined by the fundamentals rather than by the candidates or the campaigns.

I would love to see the evidence for this assertion. Is all the bloviage about the campaigns, then, a whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing? Does the NAFTA flap not matter, or HRC's poor February strategizing, or "bomb, bomb Iran"? Howard Dean would have just as surely lost in 2004?

I'm not claiming that your statement is false, Matt - but it seems like something very hard to measure and verify, that you just put out as an aside to make another point. More followup, please.

Posted by Allan | March 6, 2008 11:13 AM

Good concept, now to analyze we would need this data on the state level. Or someone could make a nifty spreasdsheet dashboard.

Maybe a simplification would be red state, blue state, purple state breakdown for the trend. (3 trend lines.)

Whats clear is that there is more polarization in recent cycles, how that breaks down into electoral votes is whats crucial.

Posted by Kim | March 6, 2008 11:20 AM

How do you know that people's preferences for specific candidates aren't driving their partisan identification, rather than the other way around? For instance, maybe more people started calling themselves Democrats in 1991-92 because they were won over by Bill Clinton's charisma, rhetorical ability, and centrist approach. I have no idea if that's what actually happened, but it would be consistent with the chart. Aren't you just assuming the causation goes the other way, Matt?

Posted by John Althouse Cohen | March 6, 2008 11:23 AM

Election outcomes are mostly determined by the fundamentals rather than by the candidates or the campaigns.

Wiser words are seldom spoken.

Now, can you explain this to your buddy Josh Marshall? TPM has gotten so clogged with campaign ephemera it's almost unreadable...

Posted by lemuel pitkin | March 6, 2008 11:43 AM

Questionable, as some others have commented.

More precisely, it is more likely that elections are decided by a combination of these fundamentals and the ability to take advantage of that by a good candidtae and ground game.

It is s/he who gets the "fundamentals" to assert themselves at election time that matters.

Posted by john | March 6, 2008 12:19 PM

I'm with the cynics above. I'm amazed at the big deal that the left blogosphere is making out of polls that show the Dems ahead, given that we are many months from the election. Dukakis led Bush I by 17 points in August 1988. This stuff just doesn't mean anything. What's vastly more important, and ominous, is that the Dems can't agree on a candidate and McCain's getting a free pass.

Posted by beckya57 | March 6, 2008 1:56 PM

Our fundamentals are as good as 1988, great! What could possibly go wrong?

Fundamentals are important and are part of the reason why Democrats have an opportunity to score a resounding win in November, but above all else presidential elections are popularity contests. Pick someone the public doesn't like and you can throw your fundamentals out the window.

Posted by J.B. | March 6, 2008 1:56 PM

I'm with the cynics above. I'm amazed at the big deal that the left blogosphere is making out of polls that show the Dems ahead, given that we are many months from the election. Dukakis led Bush I by 17 points in August 1988. This stuff just doesn't mean anything. What's vastly more important, and ominous, is that the Dems can't agree on a candidate and McCain's getting a free pass.

Posted by beckya57 | March 6, 2008 1:57 PM

I'm with the cynics above. I'm amazed at the big deal that the left blogosphere is making out of polls that show the Dems ahead, given that we are many months from the election. Dukakis led Bush I by 17 points in August 1988. This stuff just doesn't mean anything. What's vastly more important, and ominous, is that the Dems can't agree on a candidate and McCain's getting a free pass.

Posted by beckya57 | March 6, 2008 1:57 PM

You know what this chart shows? That the election results are reflected in changes in the partisan identification of the following year. Apparently, partisan ID is tail, not the dog.

Posted by jlw | March 6, 2008 2:17 PM