A preview of post-election storytelling

I'm bracing for an avalanche of nonsense tomorrow night about why Barack Obama is responsible for the expected Republican landslide. Here's a guide to what you should expect.

It's long been obvious that Obama's political standing would decline as a result of the poor economy and the passage of time. Similarly, substantial Democratic losses in the House were always likely given the large number of seats the party had to defend in a midterm election in which it controls the presidency. The continued weakness of the economy subsequently appears to have enhanced the Republican advantage, helping to produce tomorrow's pro-GOP wave.

Instead of focusing on these structural factors, journalists and other political figures have constructed a staggering number of ad hoc claims about messaging, tactics, etc. to "explain" what has happened to Obama and the Democrats:
-Obama's message is not populist, thematic, simple, and/or comprehensive enough;
-Obama failed to "connect" with voters (in part because he often uses a Teleprompter);
-Obama has an "empathy deficit";
-Obama has no chief economic spokesperson, lacks sufficient political and policy integration, has failed to distance himself from Congressional Democrats, and needs to delegate more to his cabinet on domestic policy;
-Obama is seen as an elitist;
-Obama is too dependent on a small number of senior advisers;
-Obama failed to establish a rationale for his agenda during the campaign;
-Obama is a "legislative president" who "is not a great pitchman for his policies";
-Obama is "too articulate";
-Obama "forfeited control of the narrative" and has failed to offer a "theory of the case" or "The Sentence";
-Obama dislikes politicking, lacks intensity in campaigning, and shows indifference on the stump;
-Obama is unlucky and "Americans get nervous when they have a snakebit president";
-Obama was too liberal (see also here);
-Obama was not liberal enough and should have shown more "resolve";
-Obama sounds too pessimistic;
-Obama has not defined himself and Americans don't know who he is.

Some of these factors may play a role on the margin (particularly the public's view of Obama and the Democrats as too liberal), but the effects are likely to be relatively small and should be judged against an appropriate structural baseline rather than the implausible counterfactual that Democrats would be riding to victory if they had only used tactic X. The reality is that political tactics tend to work when the fundamentals are favorable and fail when they're not. That's why even Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton couldn't save their parties from significant midterm losses in 1982 and 1994. Why would we expect Obama to succeed where they failed?

It's also likely that we'll hear implausible claims that the Republican victory will help Obama by creating a foil for the White House and/or allowing him to move toward the center. Last week, for instance, NPR ran a story noting that the presidents who lost control of Congress during their first term were all re-elected. In it, host Guy Raz claimed, "like Truman and even Eisenhower, President Clinton was able to convince the public that the problem in Washington was Congress and not him. And it's how he was re-elected in 1996."

However, as I've noted many times before, Clinton's victory was primarily the result of the growing economy, not the Republican Congress, his move toward the center, or the government shutdown. As John Sides correctly argues, divided government is likely to be bad for Obama because he'll "have less power but no less accountability."

To help entertain you tomorrow night, I've created a handy bingo chart of these claims so you can play along with the pundits at home:

Enjoy!

[Cross-posted to HuffPost Pollster]

Comments

[Rob]

According to Chait, the Douglass Hibbs structural factors predict a 45-seat Democratic loss in the House. (Chait thinks that's 5-10 seats too low, but I'm interested in what the models predict, not what Chait thinks.) My question is, does Brendan accept that 45-seat loss as the amount attributable under the best available model to structural factors? If not, what is the predicted loss according to the model Brendan prefers?

I ask these questions because once we know how many lost seats are attributable to structural factors, we can then compare results on Tuesday against that structural factor baseline and consider which other factors (some or all of which may be listed by Brendan) account for the variance.

[metrichead.blogspot.com]

Thanks for the bingo chart, Brendan. With your permission, can I print a handful of them off and give them to my nieces and nephews as Christmas gifts?

[bnyhan]

Go for it -- they also make fine Hannukah and birthday presents.

[Mad as hell]

The one thing you didn't list is the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" reason. All seats gained over 30-40 should be attributed to that! If you got out among the people you would know that!

[David in Cal]

Brendan's chart suggests that he may be spending more effort on defending his particular model than on improving it.

Note that the term "structural" is used in a special way. IMHO it's a kind of spin. It's supposed strengthen one's belief in Brendan's favored model by conveying the idea that economic factors are somehow part of the fundamental structure of an election. Of course, that's not the the case. Economic factors can be shown to correlate pretty well with election results. They're convenient because they can be measured objectively and numerically. However, economic indicators are not a part of the structure of an election.

Brendan wants us to believe that "non-stuctural" elements are not significant. The best way to do that would be to include these elements in his model and verify that their inclusion doesn't improve the model's accuracy. Instead, he resorts to mockery.

One missing "non-structural" element that I believe is significant is media bias. E.g. ABC News had invited a conservative speaker to be part of their on air election analysis on ABC TV. In the face of left-wing objections, ABC News rescinded that invitation. (As usual, he was baselessly accused of being a racist.)

ITSM that when a major mainstream TV station allows the left-wing to exercise a veto over its guest list, that must have an effect on the many viewers who depend on ABC News for their worldview. Put another way, would it not make a significant difference if mainstream media allowed conservatives equal access? I don't know how to measure media bias numerically and objectively, but I believe if one could do so, it could be used to improve the election models.

[metrichead.blogspot.com]

Brendan, do you think the Tea Party has hurt Senate candidates in blue states (e.g., Linda McMahon) who hasn't associated his or herself with them?

[metrichead.blogspot.com]

Oh, and thanks for the bingo cards. I promise you in no time flat, I'll be the uncle all the kids hate the most.

[bnyhan]

I'm not sure it's my ideal model, but it's the one I've seen that includes the fewest indicators related to contemporary politics (generic ballot, presidential approval, etc.). In any case, the model probably won't hit the number perfectly, but we should avoid making up stories about why that is without considering how your variable of choice relates to the model's predictions for all years in the data (if possible).

[David in Cal]

Although Brendan's clever chart represents a wide spectrum of pundits, ISTM it leaves out some conservative explanations for the prospective Republican landslide. They basically add up to accusations of bad laws and irresponsible government.

Number 1 is the Health Care Law. It was shoved down the throats of the American people against their wishes. It was passed by means of backroom deals and political payoffs, rather than legislative improvements. The fact the no legislator read this ground-breaking bill remains mind-boggling. ( Here Eugene Robinson imagines that racism accounts for Tea Partiers wanting to "reclaim their government." IMHO it's the way the Health bill was passed that led Tea Partiers to believe that the government had been taken away from them.)

The failure of the Stimulus Bill despite its enormous cost is second. Americans know we are suffering now from a contining recession and we will suffer in the future to pay back the enormous debt.

Third is the level of the deficit. Everyone agrees it's unsustainable, but nobody knows how to fix it. People worry that the deficit and national debt may become so large as to cause some sort of economic catastrophe.

Fourth is the irresponsible attitude of Congress and the President in the face of potential economic catastrophe. They've been going ahead and spending as if they had all the money in the world. We've seen no serious cost control measures come out of Washington. Congress's failure to pass a budget and their failure to decide what to do about the expiring tax cuts are other examples of irresponsibility. The President should have been haranguing the Congress to take action on these vital matters.

From the conservative POV, these substantive failures are major reasons why the voting public wants to make a change.

[rewinn]

If the average voters really were angry about a bill being "showed down their throat" (after more than a year of negotiation and compromise on major principles, e.g. public option ... and being functionally identical to Newt Gingrinch's 1995 plan) or even actually worried about W's last budget's $1.4 Trillion deficit (yes, Virginia, the 2009 budget was written in the Fall of 2008), then there would be no need for attack ads paid for by parties unknown ... certainly including domestic carbon barons and possibly (but unknowably ... thanks to GOP's blocking the DISCLOSE Act) including foreign enemies of our United States, via soveriegn wealth funds.

That's the story of this election, but it's not in the "lamestream media" which to a large extent is owned by the same people buying the election (NewsCorps' largest shareholder is foreign born and 2nd is a Saudi).

So blame the Democrats for style or whatever, but buy all means, don't "follow the money". That's sooooo Nixon-era.

[JP]

Thanks David in Cal for filling in my bingo card slot for "too liberal". One slot I would have liked to see would be blaming the Citizens United case for the Dems loss. I'm willing to believe money has an influence but I think the changes made by this case slide into the margins.