Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Roger of Invisible America's avatar
  2. Brian Kogelmann's avatar
  3. RMD's avatar
  4. Textbook Author's avatar
  5. New Author's avatar
  6. J. McKenzie Alexander's avatar
  7. Terence Rajivan Edward's avatar

So what might actually decide the election?

Brian Leiter

Obsessing over last week's or this week's polls is irresistible, but they are pure noise (see here).   This essay in the NYRB makes for timely reading (I've been reading the Achen & Bartels book, on recommendation of Jason Brennan, and it is instructive on a number of points).  10% of the electorate might actually be undecided; everyone else will largely vote their tribalist loyalties.  Events in the world, or what the candidates say and do, are not wholly irrelevant, but apparently fairly close to being so.  Here's two things that might matter:

1.  An economic collapse of 2008 proportions in the next couple of months–that would favor Trump, not because he'd have a rational response to it, but because the Democrats would be blamed (also irrationally).

2.  A catastrophic terrorist attack (e.g., a 9/11-scale event in the US) or catastrophic military event (e.g., Israel bombs Iran, Russia invades Urkaine).  This might favor Trump as well.  (Assuming ISIS favors Trump, which they presumably do [assuming they are somewhat instrumentally rational], then that probably raises the risk of a domestic terrorist incident in the coming months.)

I realize all of these are pretty dramatic scenarios.  But read the NYRB essay.   Clinton's pick of Kaine is explained pretty easily by the thought that there's only 10%, if that, of the electorate up for grabs.  And barring one of the preceding extreme scenarios, it's still a very good bet Clinton will win, and win by the margin she's been leading for most of the last eight months, namely about 4% or so.  If 1 or 2 occur, or something else comparable, then all bets are off.  Anyone have contrary evidence?  Informed criticism, with links preferably, of Achen & Bartels would also be welcome.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

17 responses to “So what might actually decide the election?”

  1. Daniel Kaufman

    I think a lot will rest on whether Hillary can keep her cool and not let Trump goad her into a lot of negative campaigning.

    #1. One thing the primaries showed us — Trump doesn't do worse when he behaves badly, he does better. That's because part of his appeal to his constituency is as the "middle finger" candidate.

    #2 . Hillary is at her least appealing when she is shrill and shrieking. Right now, Trump is playing Rope-a-Dope. When it gets close to the end, he will release a blizzard of slickly produced, highly negative advertisements. If Clinton starts lashing out in kind, she will be doomed. Her best bet is to act as if Trump isn't even there. Campaign entirely on substance and positive proposals. Let him look like an ignored, ranting luntic on a street corner. Do as few debates as possible. (I know, the temptation to do them is great, because she is so much more knowledgeable than him. But remember point #1. And also remember that both Carter and Mondale were much more knowledgeable than Reagan, and he cleaned both their clocks.)

    Reply
  2. Brian B

    A couple of quick thoughts:

    #1 seems unlikely to me because this is an event that, at least in the short-term, is mostly avoidable thanks to the powers of central bankers and their powerful beneficiaries who will NOT want to see a Trump presidency.

    #2 I see as a big threat, and I wonder if it has not already played a role in some recent attacks. Considering that Trump has polled significantly higher on issues of terrorism and national security, it should be very concerning that ISIS and affiliates may thereby have it within their power to influence the election in his favor. That we are so predictable and reactionary to make this a serious issue is very troubling but nothing new. The question is, can we do anything to change this reality, within the confines of what is politically feasible in the US?

    Reply
  3. Daniel Kaufman

    Crap, I should have numbered mine differently. Brian B. is replying to B.L.'s #1 and #2, not mine. Brian, could you change my 1 and 2 to (A) and (B)?

    Reply
  4. Brian Leiter

    Regarding your #1 (or, alternatively, [A]), there's simply no reason to think that what worked for Trump in the Republican primaries–already a bit of a freak show selection of the electorate–will work in the general election.

    Reply
  5. Larry Franz

    Perhaps you'd consider amending:

    "Hillary is at her least appealing when she is shrill and shrieking"

    to:

    "Hillary is at her least appealing to some voters when she speaks in a gentle, ladylike tone, because they think ladies shouldn't be too emotional, but in her case, she shouldn't be unemotional either, because then she will seem inauthentic"?

    As the song said, sometimes it's hard to be a woman.

    Regarding the topic in general: words fail me.

    Reply
  6. Larry Franz

    Whoops. That should have been "most appealing to some voters", of course.

    Reply
  7. Demonsthenes

    Well, thank God for that (the "pure noise" link). Best news on the internet today.

    Reply
  8. Daniel Kaufman

    BL: I certainly hope that you are right. But I do think my estimation of Hillary's best chances is correct. Her own negatives, after all, while not Trump-level, are quite high.

    Reply
  9. Karl Young

    I haven't yet read the NYRB article but looking forward to it, thanks for the recommendation. But I've been worried about the increased risk of #2 for a while. It seems to me that the best opportunity for ISIS or a related group to wreak havoc on the US would be to get Trump elected, not only because it would be domestically devastating, but also that Trump is such a 'uge tool, re. recruiting and dread creation.

    I'm not a big fan of the security state; in my, no doubt flawed and misinformed view the only way to survive the violence porn cults, is to accept the very slightly increased risk (we're all eventually heading for the same place in any case). We need to learn to shrug off the threat and make their attempts at creating dread ineffective, while still being a little more careful and aware, trying to address some of the causes, and mourning our losses. But all that said, I wouldn't mind Obama paying some attention to the possibility of #2 for a few months.

    Reply
  10. Daniel Kaufman

    No thanks. I'll stick with what I wrote.

    Reply
  11. V. Alan White

    Thanks for the links Brian.

    What strikes me first is that election threads here and at other sites usually given to more reflective tones often sound as raucously divided and emotionally tribal as the NYBR piece describes the general electorate.

    But what strikes me next is that this article, written just days ago, is already outdated (somewhat) by the revelations about the DNC emails, and, just minutes before I wrote this, more senseless mass killing in Tokyo. Certainly not Trump un-friendly events.

    With the electorate so sharply divided, the election seems like a truly chaotic system that might be tipped either way as late as the last few days before November 8th.

    Reply
  12. Akilesh Ayyar

    Michael Moore argues — http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/5-reasons-why-trump-will-_b_11156794.html — for a convincing and rather scary scenario involving Trump winning certain white working-class blue states due to his trade protectionism, brash and supposedly salt-of-the-earth persona, and xenophobia. If he wins Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, all of which have or have recently had Republican governors, then he doesn't need Florida, Colorado, or Virginia. This would be a "Trump Democrat" coalition.

    Moore also mentions how Democratic turnout, particularly among the poor and minorities, may be highly sensitive to (lack of) voter enthusiasm for Hillary, even if the population supports her in principle.

    That said, I suspect that in the months right before the election there will be many late deciders, and late deciders in the Republican primaries voted overwhelmingly against Trump. Also there are very likely going to be a bunch of breakaway Republicans — "Hillary Republicans" — who could be a formidable force.

    BL COMMENT: If I remember rightly, Moore also predicted a Romney victory! I think his main goal is to motivate his troops.

    Reply
  13. Balazs

    I have a more pessimistic view: I don't think that barring Brian's (1) or (2) it is a safe bet that Clinton will win.

    I don't think that the American political discourse have yet grasped the brutal simplicity of the two-step-recipe Trump is following: (i) dominate the headlines for the next two weeks with themes that are under your apparent control (regardless of whether the way this is achieved is by statements that are controversial or consistent with what you said two weeks ago or even make sense – it is all bullshit in Frankfurt's sense), and (ii) constantly vilify everyone else. In this scheme people who spill ink on rationally discussing "proposals" such as to "ban muslims from entering the country" etc. are unfortunately nothing but useful idiots in helping achieving goal (i).

    A successful implementation of this two-step-recipe seems frighteningly effective in getting elected and holding onto office. If I may draw a parallel that kept sending chills down on my spine for the past year: this is the same recipe that Viktor Orban, prime minister of Hungary, successfully followed in the past couple of years. Being aware of its effectiveness and recognizing the parallel between campaign strategies is probably also part of the reason why Orban became the first head of state to wager on Trump winning and endorsing him.

    I do not know what could be effective in countering this two-step-recipe, but getting back the control over the themes that are under discussion seems to be essential part of it, and I'm afraid the Clinton team is not really capable to do this facing down Trump.

    I do hope I am wrong in all of this.

    Reply
  14. Geoff Holtzman

    Just a point of clarification: While the noisiness of polls is an important issue to recognize, what we've seen in the past week is not that. It's a significant bump due to a confound. On July 19th, Nate Silver ran a piece where he predicted the bump, and explained that while post-convention bumps eventually cancel out, "it would be a bad sign for Trump if he can’t at least tie Clinton in polls conducted in between the RNC and the DNC."

    Reply
  15. Brian Leiter

    The problem is Nate Silver is making the mistake Sam Wang counseled against in the item I linked to today. Do take a look at that. For reasons noted a few weeks ago, I get the sense that Nate Silver has lost the touch and is pandering perhaps because he's trying to drive traffic to his solo outfit.

    Reply
  16. Daniel Kaufman

    I agree with this entirely and also hope that you (and I) are wrong. I am, however, detecting a bit of excessive confidence on the part of the Clinton camp and really hope that more realistic heads prevail within the campaign.

    Reply
  17. Chris Gifford

    For 1., it doesn't have to be of 2008 proportions – just an end of cycle event that gets hyped up in the media. As it stands, some of the big name investors have recently weighed in (http://thesovereigninvestor.com/exclusives/stocks-economy-on-verge-of-collapse/) . With a spread of negative interest rates over the last months, stoicism from the Fed, low or negative sovereign and yields, and still wide talk about uncertainty in the global market I wouldn't be surprised if there's a flight to corporate bonds. There's no Lehman-US analogue now – just concern over Deutsche with a share price that has dropped lower than its 2008 and 2009 lows.

    And there's this: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth .

    (The previous is non-investment advice. Risk of Loss.)

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress