Silver notes that presidents have historically lost their reelection campaigns when economic growth is low. But he points out the exceptions, too: Eisenhower won despite 1.8% growth, GW Bush won with only 2.4% growth, and Humphrey lost with 5% growth. Silver calls out political scientists for relying on very specific variables to explain these exceptions and predict future elections:
Some political scientists have tried to explain these exceptions by resorting to an alphabet soup of economic indicators, conjuring obscure variables like R.D.P.I.P.C. (real disposable-personal-income per capita), which they claim can predict elections with remarkable accuracy. From the standpoint of responsible forecasting, this is a mistake. The government tracks literally 39,000 economic indicators each year.
Silver explains that some economic indicators predict elections "by chance alone," while "indicators like the unemployment rate have historically had almost no correlation with election results despite their self-evident importance." GDP, he argues, is the best indicator to look at because it measures overall economic activity.
The Obama campaign isn't fan on Silver's calculations. In today's fundraising email titled "Obama is toast?" campaign manager Jim Messina rejects the idea of using "a mathematical formula to conclude who will win this race." Messina praises the grassroots organization that Obama 2012 is building in all 50 states, and says that will help the president beat Silver's "formula." "So, is Obama toast? It's up to you," Messina concludes.
No comments:
Post a Comment