Predictions

Phil Klinker at the Monkey Cage jokes:

Tom Edsall has a good overview of the election predictions offered by various political scientists. The consensus? A big win for Obama, unless he loses.

In truth, though, what's striking about the roundup is how little real disagreement there is. First there's Alan Abramowitz, Tom Mann, and Larry Sabato and their essay "The Myth of a Tossup Election" arguing that Obama will win easily. James Campbell, on the other hand, thinks it'll be close. Then we learn that "Vanderbilt's John Geer, in turn, is by no means convinced that McCain will lose as badly as Adlai Stevenson in 1952." Robert Y. Shapiro says it'll be close, Michael S. Lewis-Beck and Charles Tien argue that Obama will win but only narrowly because his race will turn off a segment of the electorate, Helmut Norpoth has a model that predicts a narrow Obama win, and then Sandy Maisel agrees with the Abramowitz/Mann/Sabato analysis.

Basically, predictions range from Obama winning narrowly to Obama winning easily with one guy calling it a toss-up. In other words nobody thinks McCain is likely to win.

My take on this is that the election is more unpredictable than the "Obama in a landslide" crowd thinks primarily because the fundamentals themselves are unpredictable. I don't think it's likely that there'll be a marked turnaround in economic conditions over the next few months, but macroeconomic trends are famously hard to forecast. Similarly, none of us really know what's going to happen in Iraq over the next few months. Elections are primarily determined by the fundamentals, and thus are in that sense more predictable than journalists usually imply, but it's not as if the fundamentals are all that easy to predict.

Comments

The fundamentals are unpredictable on the downside. But there's little chance that we'll see sudden huge improvements in the economy, oil prices, the housing market, Iraq, etc. In short, the fundamentals are unlikely to signficantly improve in a manner that will help McCain signficantly over the next three months. Meaning that McCain has very, very little chance to win.

Posted by Al | July 28, 2008 5:29 PM

Any old models that don't make any adjustments for O's race are BS. I can't tell you how many previously-Dem-voting "friends" in PA are forwarding me racist BS emails about Obama.

And the corporate media both love McCain and need it to be a close horserace.

Posted by John McCain: More of the Same | July 28, 2008 5:31 PM

I'm predicting festive atmosphere (in Chicago?) in November and more festive atmosphere in DC in January 2009.

Posted by Peter K. | July 28, 2008 5:32 PM

Considering that Obama leads in the polls, the safe prediction is that Obama will win. If things go topsy turpy, then nobody will remember these meaningless predictions.

Posted by blah | July 28, 2008 5:33 PM

What about the enormous wild card of race? Nobody really knows how much cushion Obama needs in the polls -- even the exit polls! -- actually to end up with the most votes.

Posted by Dan Warren | July 28, 2008 5:34 PM

Come on! Bob Barr has this thing in the bag.

Posted by Noah | July 28, 2008 5:34 PM

The consensus? A big win for Obama, unless he loses.

America has never elected a black man, until it does.

My prediction: McCain wins the White House with an EC majority/popular minority (actually the second-largest plurality, because of Barr and Nader), and immediately faces a Senate that's 59-41 Dem/I, and a House that's 250/185 Dem.

The nation will roundly reject the Republican party, because it's not that stupid, and reject the Democratic candidate for the White House, because it it.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | July 28, 2008 5:39 PM

Predictions are good at predicting one thing: What`absolutely will not happen in an election.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | July 28, 2008 5:44 PM

Well, I think its hard to tell for now. Lets see what the polls look like after the "Orange Alerts" start pouring out mid to late October.

Posted by Catpain Haddock | July 28, 2008 5:45 PM

I generally agree with Davis X. Machina's prediction (and have noticed the same thing that John McCain: More of the Same has noticed vis-a-vis the impact of Obama's race). The media is gonna do whatever it takes to convince people to vote for their boy, McCain and McCain will win somehow or other -- it'll be 2000,2004 all over again.

Also, I'm not even sure, pace Davis X. Machina, how well the Dems. will do in the Congressional elections: the GOP is going to run hard against the do-nothing Democratic congress (most people are un-aware about the degree to which the GOP itself is responsible for the do-nothingness of Congress).

Dems. who think we have this one in the bag are dangerously over confident.

Posted by DAS | July 28, 2008 5:49 PM

Don't forget the US or Israel war-with-Iran wildcard, which connects this post to the Kirchick one below.

Posted by otto | July 28, 2008 5:50 PM

In other words nobody thinks McCain is likely to win.

Right. But a lot of them are predicting a close race, meaning they think McCain has at least a reasonable chance of winning.

Presumably, this is why you have chosen to eschew serious and responsible election coverage and instead just indiscriminately fling poo at McCain in the hope that some of it will stick. The occasional post that might qualify as a serious critique of McCain is lost in a sea of juvenile gotchas and spin.

Posted by Mixner | July 28, 2008 5:55 PM

It's hard to make predictions, particularly about the future.

Posted by MattF | July 28, 2008 6:14 PM

Given that fundamentally unpredictable macro trends present the strongest possibility for McCain to win, another way to look at this analysis is to say that it's hard for McCain to be in worse shape than he is right now, statistically. For as much chance as there is that the economy might surprisingly pick up, foreign policy events might drastically swing McCain's way, or some dramatic other turn of events could wreck Obama's campaign, there is an equivalent chance that the economy gets surprisingly worse, foreign policy events drastically swing Obama's way, or some dramatic other turn of events wreck McCain's campaign (he has a heart attack, or a tape surfaces of Cindy McCain talking about "getting Blackey", etc).

Cancel out the equivalent unpredictables, and what's left is that McCain does not have a good chance to win the election.

Posted by Will Hutchinson | July 28, 2008 6:23 PM

For all the talk of a "close" race, McCain has only topped 45% in ONE poll I have seen in months. It's remotely possible McCain could limp across the finish with a bare EC win, but he seems to have a ceiling of support that he couldn't pierce even in the depths of the Hillary/Obama struggle.

Posted by Jimmy Jazz | July 28, 2008 7:00 PM

"Jimmy Jazz"

You do understand that whether a race is "close" depends on the difference between the levels of support for each candidate, not on whether a particular candidate has some absolute share of the vote, right?

Posted by Mixner | July 28, 2008 7:36 PM

This is the most unpollable of all elections because of the white elephant in the room which is plain and simply Obama's race. First, I suggest polls mean nothing at this point in time. Next, Obama's numbers will always be higher than the vote he will get because people giving answers will tend to hide any indication of race affecting the vote. Finally, it seems to me that many white Americans will not make up their minds until seconds prior to putting the choice on the ballot when he or she must decide whether to turn the presidency of this country over to a man of African heritage.

Posted by Llyonnoc | July 28, 2008 7:51 PM

Here's the '04 Kerry/Bush graph, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/chart3way.html

Notice that the late July numbers have nothing to do with the final result. The big poll movers are the 2 conventions. Also, the swiftboat attacks had a noticeable effect throughout August.

Posted by miguel | July 28, 2008 9:20 PM

Unless something dramatic happens, public perception tends to lag reality. The economy improved in the second half of 1992, but that didn't seem to help GHW Bush. I think that the economy is going to cut against McCain in November even if it improves.

Similarly for the Iraq war. The Republicans have been claiming that success is just around the corner for the past five years, and the public has learned to discount those claims. Even if the situation in Iraq were to improve tremendously between now and election day, I wouldn't expect public opinion to shift quickly.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | July 28, 2008 10:48 PM

But just to make sure, Matthew, could you please go on record predicting a McCain victory?

Posted by Colin | July 29, 2008 12:14 AM

Inasmuch as Obama's race is a big factor, couldn't that already be reflected in polls? The Bradley Effect seems to have disappeared in the mid-1990s, so that's only a tenuous reason to suggest that there's some net discrepency between polling and voting behavior attributable to race.

Posted by Julian Elson | July 29, 2008 3:06 AM

"but macroeconomic trends are famously hard to forecast.".

This is quite silly. The economy is shit now and thinking it might change in 100 days is preposterous.

Posted by bob h | July 29, 2008 6:49 AM

I agree events in Iraq are somewhat unpredictable, but I also agree with the other posters who have noted it is quite unlikely for the economy to completely turn around in the time left, and the chance of any such economic events significantly changing public perceptions of the economy in the time left is even smaller.

Posted by DTM | July 29, 2008 7:30 AM

I agree with Al and bob h. Matt is talking as if the election were 18 months away, instead of just over 3 months. The macro trends are not going to change much between now and then.

There's a simple formula based on 3 factors (sitting president's popularity, duration of sitting president's tenure, and I think something about the economy) that has correctly predicted I think 14 of the last 15 elections (missing only 1968 I believe). All three of the factors strongly favor Obama, so it's reasonable to conclude that he will win easily.

Posted by Jim W | July 29, 2008 9:05 AM

Due to a combination of his race and the public's unfamiliarity with him, Obama simply isn't going to 'break out'. It's going to be a very close election. He'll win, but not by much. His reelection, on the other hand...

Posted by reispace | July 29, 2008 10:26 AM

Re: I don't think it's likely that there'll be a marked turnaround in economic conditions over the next few months, but macroeconomic trends are famously hard to forecast.

The electorate generally doesn't notice changes in the economy until long after they have shown up in the official stats. Hence George Bush, 41, took a beating in '92 for a recession that ended, in the record books, more than a year before. This is due mainly because economic upturns don't touch the job market for many months after they begin, and it is in the job market that most people have their personal contact with the economy. The economy's influence on this election is pretty well set in stone already.

Re: media is gonna do whatever it takes to convince people to vote for their boy, McCain

Paranoia. You know, over on RedState or one of the other conservative sites, there's probably someone posting right now how the media will do what it takes to elect Obama. Both Right and Left have this notion that if the media does not fall down in adoring worship before their candidate while proclaiming his opponent the Spawn of Satan then the media is biased.
One interesting fact about this election: both candidates know how to work the media, unlike the last two elections when both candidates were incompetent in that regard.

Posted by JonF | July 29, 2008 6:44 PM

I duno, the closer we get to national debates, the more McCain will rub his face with his big wrinkled hand, looking to the world like a man who is ranking his brain for the slightest inkling of knowledge about foreign policy and please, we shouldn't even get started on the economy.

No wonder they talk about flags on lapels, trying to dumb it down enough for McCain.

Posted by Independent Perspective | July 30, 2008 12:34 AM

I duno, the closer we get to national debates, the more McCain will rub his face with his big wrinkled hand, looking to the world like a man who is ranking his brain for the slightest inkling of knowledge about foreign policy and please, we shouldn't even get started on the economy.

No wonder they talk about flags on lapels, trying to dumb it down enough for McCain.

Posted by Independent Perspective | July 30, 2008 12:37 AM

oops, sorry about the double post

Posted by Independent Perspective | July 30, 2008 12:39 AM

If Americans are really looking for a moderate who can work in a bipartisan way to solve the nation's problems--from energy prices to international crises--McCain has the record they are looking for and Obama does not.

Oh, that's is NOT true, that is NOT true. Somebody is lying to you.

Beside ANWR and Campaign Finance, when McCain does show up to work, he votes as a stanch Republican and has the record to show too, I wonder who wrote that bit of BS? Was it Mr. Edsall?

We're not talking Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins here. McCain isn't any more moderate that then the other AZ Sen. Jon Kyl is a moderate. Matt needs to fact check that comment because it simply is not true. Gosh, the lying journalist have infiltrated the Huffington Post, that’s pretty sad that he was able to write that un-fact check BS.

Posted by Independent Perspective | July 30, 2008 1:11 AM