According to conventional political science literature, the state of the economy is the primary variable for explaining campaign outcomes. Gaffes and debates and primary speeches gather a lot of attention by pundits, but they ultimately don't matter on Election Day.
The most recent issue of PS compiled 13 different articles by political scientists who used different models for predicting the November election. A recent WaPo article summarized their findings. 8 found that Obama would win; 5 predicted a Romney win. The 8 that picked Obama said it would be a very close win. Their findings are widely different from Nate Silver, who has been consistently picking Obama.
If the economy is the primary variable for picking an election, why are there such different predictions between Silver and political scientists? Why are there differences even among the political science community? Everybody is using different variables to describe the economy.
We had a nice chat about the economy and the election yesterday. Today, Derek Thompson explains that the economy doesn't seem to be slowing down Obama, because things are slowly, very slowly, improving.
This is a crummy economy. And it's nothing to be satisfied with. Our unemployment crisis is tragic. Personal income growth is pathetic. But perhaps the reason the economy has faded as an indicator of doom for the president is that the overall pace of its recovery has been thermostatically mediocre and only-just-barely acceptable to only-just-barely enough voters. As the models predict: Things getting better, slowly puts us in a mood of frustration … but not quite a mood of change.
Will tonight's debates make a difference? Most of the time, debates don't matter. People have already made up their minds, and only die-hard political junkies really pay attention.
Well, this die-hard political junkie will be paying very close attention. And twittering through the whole thing.
Apt. 11d 
this die-hard political junkie will be paying very close attention
Why? Do you think, for example, that you’ll learn something new about their positions or their character? That seems very unlikely, doesn’t it? Perhaps at one point this wasn’t so- when there was vastly less media coverage, maybe a debate was a good time to gain new information, but if that was ever so, it seems very unlikely now. I also tend to think that debate of any sort is a pretty bad way to gain information or learn something- rhetorical skill is too much a part of it. While rhetorical skill has, I suppose, some value for a president, I’d put it very far down on my list, especially as it’s probably not even the most important skill for convincing people or getting them to agree with you. So, the debate seems like pure spectacle, with no or at more very limited informative value. Why not have them play a game of HORSE, or play trivial pursuit against each other or something? To me, it’s obvious that the whole thing is pointless, so if you really think it’s worth something, I’d be glad to hear what you think it is. I’d be glad to see these (very expensive to put on) events eliminated.
LikeLike
In my quick scan of the WaPo summary of the political scientists’ findings, I thought the reason they varied so much from Nate Silver is because they were predicting different things. The WaPo summary indicates that the academics were predicting the winner of the popular vote — which Nate is still predicting will be relatively close (pick what “relative” means to you). Where Nate has the President winning by a much larger margin is in the electoral college. It wasn’t clear (again in the WaPo summary) that the political scientists even analyzed the electoral college outcome.
LikeLike
“this die-hard political junkie will be paying very close attention”
Why?
Because this is her field of interest! I don’t get it, either, ’cause I know who I’m voting for, and as far as who other ill vote for, I figure I’ll know that in a month, too. But, that’s ’cause I’m not interested in the mechanisms of politics and how democracies make decisions on voting and how campaigns and other variables affect decision making. As a field, though, it’s a perfectly reasonable field of interest.
(I’m guessing other people don’t find the b-day problem, ad the way that people interact with statistical information nearly as fascinating as I do, either).
LikeLike
that’s ’cause I’m not interested in the mechanisms of politics and how democracies make decisions on voting
Is there any reason to think that debates these days are important parts of the “mechanisms of politics” or “how democracies make decisions on voting”? My impression is that, these days at least, they have almost no impact at all. (Sometimes the reporting _after_ the debate has a small impact, it seems, but that seems more like a reason for getting rid of debates than anything.) I’d be shocked if debates had an impact on anything close to 1% of the vote.
LikeLike
People watch football games even when they know that a particular game won’t affect who wins the championship.
LikeLike
People watch football games even when they know that a particular game won’t affect who wins the championship.
Sure- if the answer is “I enjoy watching a spectacle” then I suppose there’s no accounting for tastes on such things. But I think we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that it’s anything more, and that we should ask whether having such things is a good idea or not. I don’t see any argument in favor for them these days except that people enjoy a spectacle, and see some good reason against them (cost, often decreasing the knowledge that people have, encouraging a focus on “zingers” and the like, etc.)
LikeLike
Speaking of diehard political junkies, AmyP has been quiet lately, so I’m guessing she’ll have some news soon. I am bummed because I’d guessed October 4. (Or will this draw her out to let me know I still have a chance?)
LikeLike
Dude, I do a lot of pointles things, just because they are fun. Right now, I’m going to the gym to run two miles and I’ll be watching the Kardashians the whole time.
Hope Amy P is ok.
LikeLike
I won’t watch the debates, but I do think they are important. They are quite possibly the only barrier to nominating somebody incapable of thinking on their own. It may not affect the election because it creates an incentive so obvious that no party ignores it, but the incentive is important.
LikeLike
Since we learned that Mitt Romney was pre-scripting some “zingers” to use during the debate, we’ll be playing “Spot The Zinger” tonight. I’m hoping for some version of “Hey, Barack! The jerkstore called, and they’re out of you!”
LikeLike
Well, lets hope this debate doesn’t make any difference.
LikeLike
Almost all my friends watched the debates and I am not sure I’d classify us as political junkies. I think people are more interested than you think.
LikeLike