PDA

View Full Version : The diminished importance of incumbency



pjohns
07-13-2012, 04:01 PM
Senior Columnist Alan I. Abramowitz, of Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball, in that publication's latest newsletter, notes the greatly diminished advantage of incumbency nowadays, in presidential elections:


"The Polarization Effect

"The unexpected closeness of all four presidential elections since 1996 suggests that growing partisan polarization is resulting in a decreased advantage for candidates favored by election fundamentals, including first-term incumbents. This change is the product of a close division between party supporters within the electorate and a decrease in the willingness of voters to cross party lines to vote for any candidate from the opposing party, including an incumbent. As a result, election outcomes tend to reflect the underlying division between supporters of the two major parties, and right now that division is very close. In fact, the last four presidential elections have produced the closest victory margins and the smallest inter-election vote swings of any four consecutive elections in the past century.

(Here Mr. Sabato details an equation that is a viable predictor of an incumbent's advantage in the past, versus the present. See article.)

"The estimates for the revised model indicate that in the current era of partisan polarization, the advantage enjoyed by a first-term incumbent is less than half of what it was earlier -- about 2.5 percentage points instead of 5.2 percentage points. This is not only a statistically significant difference; it is also a substantively significant difference. Specifically, it means that President Obama is likely to have a much tougher fight to win a second term. (bold in original)

"Two of the three predictors used in the revised model are now set. President Obama’s net approval rating in the final Gallup Poll in June was +2 percentage points (48% approval vs. 46% disapproval). And Obama’s advantage as a first-term incumbent in the current era of polarization is 2.5 percentage points. The only predictor that remains to be determined is the change in real GDP during the second quarter of 2012 -- the first estimate of that number will be released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis on July 27." (Bold in original)

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/abramowitzpolarizationmodel/

Sabato further notes how a weak economy could lessen President Obama's chances for re-election. In the end, however, he surmises that "we can expect another close election this year -- probably closer than the 2008 election and possibly as close as the 2000 election." I suppose we will know for sure, soon enough.

Mainecoons
07-13-2012, 04:51 PM
Exactly why we need to give the liberals their own country to wreck and the rest of us get a country to restore prosperity and Constitutional rule. There's no compromising with progressives, they are incapable of facing and acknowledging the failure of their ideas and supporting real change.

You want real change? Roll Back government! That would be a real change.

Trinnity
07-13-2012, 09:44 PM
Sabato is a political analyst on the genius level. I look to Rasmussen polls and Larry first and foremost for the most accurate info and predictions.

Chris
07-13-2012, 10:30 PM
SO the economy will determine this according to his predictions:
Two of the three predictors used in the revised model are now set. President Obama’s net approval rating in the final Gallup Poll in June was +2 percentage points (48% approval vs. 46% disapproval). And Obama’s advantage as a first-term incumbent in the current era of polarization is 2.5 percentage points. The only predictor that remains to be determined is the change in real GDP during the second quarter of 2012 — the first estimate of that number will be released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis on July 27.

Table 1: Conditional forecast of Obama’s share of major party vote

http://i.snag.gy/sPdoQ.jpg


Great article, thanks!

Trinnity
07-13-2012, 10:49 PM
I'll be watching for this.

patrickt
07-14-2012, 06:56 AM
Exactly why we need to give the liberals their own country to wreck and the rest of us get a country to restore prosperity and Constitutional rule. There's no compromising with progressives, they are incapable of facing and acknowledging the failure of their ideas and supporting real change.
You want real change? Roll Back government! That would be a real change.

Sorry, but they had California which is bigger than a lot of countries. Once they'd wrecked it they spread like a virus abandoning a dying host but they learned nothing from the experience. Now, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, and others are infected. I accused a Californian of wanting the change Colorado into Los Angeles without black people and the comment I got was, "Wouldn't that be just about perfect?" No.

Peter1469
07-14-2012, 09:45 AM
I always figured that is what caused Colorado to go left. When I used to travel there in the 80s people were salt of the earth, independent, and wary of government.

Trinnity
07-14-2012, 12:59 PM
I hear that CO is getting more conservative again and that a lot of peeps fleeing from cali are cons.
Is that true?

Peter1469
07-14-2012, 01:17 PM
I hear that CO is getting more conservative again and that a lot of peeps fleeing from cali are cons.
Is that true?

That is what I hear.

Deadwood
07-14-2012, 03:21 PM
Wow, predicting that this will be a close election is really sticking one's neck out.

But, let's face some realities too. Even Reagan's victory over the incumbent Jame Earl Carter was all last minute. Reagan trailed in the polls until the debate.....and even then the 'landslide' came in the closing week of the campaign.

Obama's bleat "they won't let me do anything" is thread bare. By continuing to press for tax increases he is sinking his own ship and probably dooming a nation to several more years of stagnation. So, we have gone from 'how does Obama not lose the election?' to "what does he have to do to win?"

And there's where the arrogant, incompetent, lazy Obama falls short. His plan was "hope and change" which now turns out to be your [spare] change and a Hail Mary instead of hope.

It has been said that if unemployment numbers are still above 8% election day, he will lose.

Mainecoons
07-14-2012, 03:39 PM
Unfortunately, since the unemployment figures from the government are fiction and the real un/underemployment is somewhere north of 16 percent, I have every confidence that the Obama administration will lie mightily about employment as the election approaches.

And the useful idiots in the press will buy it hook, line and sinker.

Trinnity
07-14-2012, 04:01 PM
I've seen libs elsewhere claim, stone-faced, that Obama will win by a landslide. That's just insane. But can he lose by a 5-10 points? Maybe. The polls are not the be all and end all. Most of them poll registered voters instead of likely voters. The press falsely props him us and I think his support is a house of cards. My predictors are this:

Consistent mentions from Blacks that they'll stay home.
Blacks supporting him publicly, but not privately. "tired of defending him"
People know in their gut things are worse.
Donations way down.
Signs of desperation from the admin
Members of his own party disassociating from him.


Well, we'll have to wait and see.

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 08:16 AM
Maybe I'm missing it, but the article isn't just another "BO's gonna lose" prediction, the basis, I think, is that incumbents are less likely to get reelected because people are more likely to dislike who they vote into office.

Might be more of a slam against the two-party system, maybe.

Trinnity
07-15-2012, 08:43 AM
Maybe I'm missing it, but the article isn't just another "BO's gonna lose" prediction, the basis, I think, is that incumbents are less likely to get reelected because people are more likely to dislike who they vote into office.

Might be more of a slam against the two-party system, maybe.I think it's comfirmation of increased polarization, but most of all indicative of the increased scrutiny politicians face these days. I'd like to think that the internet for all it's good and bad, has gotten people more plugged into what's going on in politics. So much more information is available and people are getting access to huge amounts of info. It's easier to research the answers to questions people have.

They can compare data, dig deeply into issues, and believe it or not - on a side note, youtube is great. You can find so much that's been recorded and see legislators speak. This is good for accountability. "Transparency" comes to mind.

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 08:47 AM
I think it's comfirmation of increased polarization, but most of all indicative of the increased scrutiny politicians face these days. I'd like to think that the internet for all it's good and bad, has gotten people more plugged into what's going on in politics. So much more information is available and people are getting access to huge amounts of info. It's easier to research the answers to questions people have.

They can compare data, dig deeply into issues, and believe it or not - on a side note, youtube is great. You can find so much that's been recorded and see legislators speak. This is good for accountability. "Transparency" comes to mind.

In the grand scheme, it's a complex number of things. Voting turnout for one thing is typically low for a democratic champion of nations, that says something. Voters are often easily swayed by advertising, hence lofty PAC expenditures, that says something else. The criteria that this piece is focusing on I believe is the suggestion that voters, or a significant block of them get buyers remorse. That also says something.

Trinnity
07-15-2012, 09:02 AM
Oh, I think the real question is 'WHY is the incumbency edge diminishing?'.

Is it because of buyer's remorse toward Obama - which has been huge, or was it inevitable?

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 09:04 AM
Well, yeah - that is the crux of the issue, why is the incumbency edge diminishing, however the discussion keeps wanting to make it a BO issue and I'm looking beyond that.

One incumbency doesn't a trend make, and he hasn't been voted out yet.

Peter1469
07-15-2012, 09:20 AM
Incumbency helps in good times and hurts in bad times.

Captain Obvious
07-15-2012, 09:23 AM
Incumbency helps in good times and hurts in bad times.

Exactly, high tide floats all boats.

Trinnity
07-15-2012, 09:50 AM
So the thing is, how will the incumbency edge look down the road - will it matter any more.
I doubt it. I think the genesis of the phenomenon was due to the basic familiarity of an incumbent, coupled with a lack of detailed information on the man, his policies, their economic impact, etc.

All those factors have change for a growing number of people. IOW, the people who will vote for Obama at this stage are the ignorant, the core party loyal who never sit out an election, and those who are so ideologically aligned with him that they will not abandon their commitment, no matter what.

IMO, that's not enough for him to win.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzJJgMJ32NM

pjohns
07-16-2012, 06:55 PM
Even Reagan's victory over the incumbent Jame Earl Carter was all last minute. Reagan trailed in the polls until the debate.....and even then the 'landslide' came in the closing week of the campaign.

This is certainly true.


It has been said that if unemployment numbers are still above 8% election day, he will lose.

If President Obama were to win re-election with such an astronomical unemployment rate (which does not even include underemployment, and those discouraged workers who have simply quit looking for a job), it would certainly be an anomaly.

That is why President Obama and his acolytes are continually engaging in distractions; and thereby hoping to disqualify Mitt Romney from serious consideration.

In the process, of course, they are hoping to transmute this into a choice between two competing candidates (and two competing ideologies), rather than a referendum upon President Obama's first term in office...