Obviously, I have a lot of nits to pick when it comes to campaign coverage, but my single least favorite brand of analysis is what I term "Match Game Arguments": No candidate has ever [blank]. Given various intersections of geography, demography and history, there are literally thousands of plausible-sounding permutations that can be conceived to rule out any prospective candidate.
Let me pick on Steven Stark (whose stuff I usually enjoy), who engages in a few of these arguments today at the Boston Phoenix, and uses it to conclude that John McCain is a slight favorite over Barack Obama. Stark's four factoids are as follows:• No Democrat who hails from north of the Mason-Dixon line has been elected since 1960.
Let's see how easy it is to come up with counterexamples that would rule out John McCain's candidacy. I'm going to start a stopwatch and see how long this takes me.
• No candidate in the modern primary era has ever been elected in November after failing to win more than one of the nation’s seven largest states in either its pre-convention primary or, if the state didn’t hold a primary, its caucuses.
• No candidate in modern times has ever been elected president with a voting record that could be identified as his party’s most liberal or conservative, yet in 2007 Obama was designated as the former (by the National Journal).
• No candidate arguably since Abraham Lincoln has been elected president with as little political experience as Obama.• No Democrat who hails from north of the Mason-Dixon line has been elected since 1960.
No President has ever been elected from the Mountain Time Zone.• No candidate in the modern primary era has ever been elected in November after failing to win more than one of the nation's seven largest states in either its pre-convention primary or, if the state didn't hold a primary, its caucuses.
No Republican has ever been elected after failing to carry Colorado in the primaries (McCain lost it to Mitt Romney). No Republican has ever been elected after failing to carry Georgia in the priamries (McCain lost it to Mike Huckabee). No candidate from either party has ever been elected while receiving less than 19 percent of the vote in the Iowa caucus (McCain received 13 percent), except when a native son was running (Tom Harkin in 1992).• No candidate in modern times has ever been elected president with a voting record that could be identified as his party's most liberal or conservative, yet in 2007 Obama was designated as the former (by the National Journal).
No candidate has ever been elected from the incumbent party when the sitting president had a Gallup approval rating below 40 percent.• No candidate arguably since Abraham Lincoln has been elected president with as little political experience as Obama.
No candidate as old as John McCain has ever been elected to a first term.
Time elapsed: 14 minutes, 02 seconds.
62 comments
nice
my favorite was always that no incumbent with a four letter last name had ever been elected to a second term...George W. broke that one...
People who like those sorts of facts...factoids...are often baseball fans. "This pitcher has never won an away game played against a west-coast team on astroturf on a cloudy Tuesday night the week after pitching a shutout Wednesday afternoon home game during which over 75% of the fans purchased both a hot dog and a soft pretzel. In July."
This election has broken so many barriers, I doubt conventional wisdom applies anyway. We are likely to see a whole lot of firsts this November.
If that's going to be the argument game, they might as well just say "No black guy has ever been elected President."
Illinois isn't one of the 7 largest states?
"Moreover, McCain has some cards to play, even if he has not played them yet."
McCain's campaign is outspending Obama's campaign. Because Obama will have more money, McCain will be in a big financial hole.
If I was him and I had more cards to play later on, I'm not sure I would be wasting resources on ads comparing Obama to Brittany Spears.
They might have cards to play but they won't have chips to play them with if they keep this up.
So far I'm underwhelmed by the quality of the negative attack ads they've put out on Obama. If they have something on him, they better start using it.
Illinois isn't one of the 7 largest states?
It's 25th by area. But making this sort of claim based on land area would be fairly odd.
Nate,
I had read that same article shortly before your post, and I agree with you.
I think Stark also should be called out for resorting to that old Republican chestnut "Carter, Dukakis and Kerry had summer leads, and look what happened." I find that almost as bad as the "No candidate has ever ..." garbage.
In investing, the motto is "Past results are no guarantee of future performance." Why is it that no one applies this same wisdom to Presidential elections?
Attacks don't work against Obama. Hillary's didn't work and neither do McCain's. Obama loses support only when he hurts himself.
Obama has lost support on 4 occasions since January:
1) Jeramiah Right (March)
2) Clinging to God and Guns (April)
3) Jeramiah Right episode 2(May)
4) Flip Flop(July)
All of these occurances were self inflicted. Including the July flip flops when Barack made a calculated move to the center. There has not been a single attack on Obama that has stuck. McCain can't win this election, but Obama can lose it.
Really glad you made that point, Nate. I've been meaning to post (and this is a good place to do so) the same criticism of Allan Lichtman's Keys To The White House. How can one falsify whether or not 13 true-false questions are going to make an accurate prediction, when there are 2^13 combinations to test?
Smaller subsets of Lichtman's keys, including just two of them, are a bit more testable. IIRC, the two keys that have performed perfectly since ca. Lincoln's time are short-term economy (which cannot be perceived, in a man-on-the-street way rather than a technical, whiny Phil Gramm way, to be in recession) plus contest (i.e., there cannot be a knock-down, drag-out contest for the nomination of the incombent party). If either of those conditions is false, the challenging party wins. Prediction this year, based on Lichtman's "Two Keys": Obama (short economy key false).
But if you want to predict based on the economy, I like Alan Abramowitz's electoral barometer (also see this post for a nice graph showing how his formula has worked).
To the extent that people are worried about the economy and gas prices, I hope the Republicans play that right up. It will only remind voters how poorly things have gone under a Republican administration. I don't think offshore drilling is a wedge issue on which the GOP can get a net win. The overall point that both Lichtman and Abramowitz are making is that voters choose rationally, based on tangible things that have happened during the past four or eight years. Voters keep the incumbent party in power when they don't screw up too much, and boot them when things go poorly. (What's been the GOP energy policy? A botched war for oil. Not a big winner.)
Those people mistake coincidence for causation.
It used to be that Maine had voted for the winner in every Presidential election for 100 years, thus creating the saying "As goes Maine, so goes the nation."
Until FDR swept every single state except Maine and Vermont in 1936, thus giving rise to the saying "As goes Maine, so goes Vermont."
No Bald-headed or balding man has won the Presidency since Eisenhower. So, McCain is on thin grounds.
No white-haired man has ever won the Presidency so McCain is toast.
No black has ever won so Obama can't.
No-one from Illinois has been elected President since Abraham Lincoln, so Obama has no chance.
No one from the state of Arizona has ever been elected President, so McCain hasn't a prayer.
Etc.
I'm going to expect four articles an hour out of you from now on, Nate. Nice takedown.
How many instances have each of these had to test?
I mean things like "no candidate has won an election while losing 7 largest primaries", how many candidates have won the nomination while losing the 7 largest primaries. Same thing with the Iowa thing.
If you track enough things, you get some amazing correlations purely by coincidence.
The Redskins are a much better team under Republican administrations. Check the stats its true.
This puts me in a great dilemma as a Skins fan and a Democrat. I almost hope McCain wins
"No one from the state of Arizona has ever been elected President, so McCain hasn't a prayer."
I'm told that McCain is super superstitious and that he actually quotes this stat all the time like he believes it has some significance. I guess he also thinks mentioning it will cause it to be broken.
He insisted on sleeping in the exact same hotel room and the exact same bed the night before the NH primary that he used the night before 2000's primary. Apparently it worked.
I bet he switched beds in SC though.