Anyone interested in the 2008 Presidential race should become familiar with Ray Fair's economic voting models. (There are others like it, pretty similar.) They predict US Presidential popular-vote outcomes using a small number of structural variables (incumbency, # terms in office, party-affiliation, war) and economic variables (inflation, GDP growth). What's sobering is that Fair's model predicts the 23 elections since 1916 quite well -- with no attention given to all the things that we politicos care about (fund-raising, coalition-building, recruiting, framing, values, character, issues, policies, GOTV, networking, rapid-response, message, etc.). Except in very close elections (such as 2000) it leaves little to human choice, except strategizing on Electoral College votes. In the 2004 election, his model predicted Bush would win 54.6% of the vote, and the actual outcome was 51.2%. So Dems did better than predicted, but not good enough.
Good news: for 2008, given current economic forecasts, the prediction is that Democrats will win 53.4% (of the two-party vote) -- no matter which candidate we select! And even if Bush's policies and popularity weren't abysmal.
The die is cast for the structural variables on incumbency and party ID, giving Republicans only 46.61% (as voters "throw the bastards out"), so all that's left is economics:
REPUBLICAN VOTE = 46.61 % + .680*GROWTH - .657*INFLATION + 1.075*GOODNEWS
As of January, Dept of Commerce forecasts for GROWTH, INFLATION, and GOODNEWS were 1.8%, 3.6%, and 1, respectively. ("GOODNEWS" is just economics: how many quarters of growth were above an annualized rate of 3.2% during the four years of the President's term). These largely cancel each other out, so the current prediction is 46.6% for any Republican to 53.4% for any Democrat.
The main index to Ray Fair's model (including a link to run your own predictions based on expected inflation and GDP growth) is here: http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/...
Of interest: in the cliff-hanger 2000 election, Fair's model predicted 49.6% for Gore (as incumbent-party); the actual popular vote was 50.3%. Pretty close. (1992's model was 4.3% off, in part because Ross Perot took 19%, much of it from Bush Sr., skewing the results.)
Here are the variables used:
* VOTE = Incumbent share of the two-party presidential vote. It is predicted by:
* PARTY = 1 if there is a Democratic incumbent at the time of the election and -1 if there is a Republican incumbent.
* PERSON = 1 if the incumbent is running for election and 0 otherwise.
* DURATION = 0 if the incumbent party has been in power for one term, 1 if the incumbent party has been in power for two consecutive terms, 1.25 if the incumbent party has been in power for three consecutive terms, 1.50 for four consecutive terms, and so on.
* WAR = 1 for the elections of 1920, 1944, and 1948 and 0 otherwise.
* GROWTH = growth rate of real per capita GDP in the first three quarters of the election year (annual rate).
* INFLATION = absolute value of the growth rate of the GDP deflator in the first 15 quarters of the administration (annual rate) except for 1920, 1944, and 1948, where the values are zero.
* GOODNEWS = number of quarters in the first 15 quarters of the administration in which the growth rate of real per capita GDP is greater than 3.2 percent at an annual rate except for 1920, 1944, and 1948, where the values are zero.
* CONSTANT = baseline starting point, roughly 47%.
One way of interpreting this is that "structure supercedes framing": whatever the pros and cons of any given candidate these can be highlighted, ignored, or framed any number of different ways, but the structural variables are paramount.
The exceptions for 1920, 1944, and 1948 raise some doubts about the model (and some fears if Bush manages to expand the current wars). I am instinctively quite opposed to predictive, quantitative approaches to politics, except for behavior which is (a) very similar across time and/or place, and (b) repeated many times. Presidential voting may be one such exception. At the very least, structure is worth being aware of as a backdrop.
To the extent the models are accurate, for rational politicos who want a Democrat to win back the White House, the fear of "electibility" of any given candidate (within reason) in the Primary Election may be exaggerated. The Party's emphasis should be on Electoral College strategizing for the General Election. Ohio, Ohio, Ohio, with 20 EC votes. (And keeping the other Great Lakes states, MN, WI, MI, with 37 EC votes total). PA with 21. Florida with 27, which we can win especially if they repeal felon-voting laws in time and Dems launch a voter-reg drive. Others, too, of course (incl. NV, NM, CO, IA, VA), but these stand out.
(Bloggers' license: the qualitative poll below includes Clark, Gore and Vilsack as possible candidates, and excludes dark-horses Kucinich and Gravel.)