Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Candidate Effects Matter

 
Windover Way Photography / Shutterstock.com
Windover Way Photography / Shutterstock.com

In an article posted on RealClear Politics, Sean Trende posits five reasons why Donald Trump can win. This is an evolution for Trende, who had previously dismissed Trump’s chances, owing to his high unfavorable rating and his appeal to the shrinking white male demographic. Like many others, however, Trende realized that Hillary’s high negatives and Trump’s potential appeal to at least some nonwhite voters render his candidacy more viable than he’d previously supposed.

I like Sean Trende: He doesn’t have an obvious ideological axe to grind and comes across as open-minded and humble in a profession where both attributes are a rarity. That said, one of his five reasons — “Candidates don’t matter much” — strikes me as just plain wrong. He writes:

Taking this a step farther, it is almost axiomatic among political scientists that candidate effects don’t matter much. That’s not to say they don’t matter at all, just that they are overstated. When I built my Senate model several years ago, I found that controversial candidates like Christine O’Donnell and Ken Buck probably only cost Republicans a couple of points (O’Donnell’s vote share actually closely mirrored the president’s unfavorable ratings). What you’re basically left with are what we call “fundamentals”: job approval, economic growth, and the like.

Right now, the fundamentals point to a close race: President Obama’s tepid job approval combined with mediocre economic growth and second-term fatigue probably create a roughly even playing field between the parties. The polling right now actually reflects that more closely than the polling from a month ago did.

I’m not a political scientist, but I’d argue that candidate effects do matter using two figures, both focusing on presidential contests between 1988 and 2012. Some of this revisits data I presented in this post. Let’s start here:

Election vote and participation data
Figure 1, showing popular votes cast for the Democrats (blue) and Republicans (red) as well as the eligible voter participation rate (gray), which includes third-party votes.

The figure above shows the total votes received by the Democratic and Republican candidates, with the percentage of participating eligible voters (including third-party voters) as grey bars. The electorate expanded (by 32 percent, or 57 million persons) between 1988 and 2012, so upward trends for both parties would be expected. While the blue curve does trend upward, note the red curve peaked in 2004 for George W. Bush’s re-election. Between 2004 and 2012, the electorate expanded by 19.6 million voters while the GOP vote decreased by 1.1 million. This should not be ignored or disguised.

More election data, 1988-2012

The second figure shows the percentage of eligible voters voting Democratic or Republican in presidential elections since 1988. Over this period, the fraction of eligible voters supporting Democrats has outpaced that for Republicans. For the Democrats, the highlights are Barack Obama’s 2008 election (where he received support from 30.8 of eligible voters) and his re-election (where he received 28 percent); for Republicans, it’s George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election (28.7 percent) followed by his father’s 1988 win (27.4 percent). Had Mitt Romney merely equaled George W. Bush’s 2004 percentage of the available electorate, he would have won the popular vote and, likely, the presidency.

I’ve heard that Perot did not hurt the GOP more than Clinton in 1992 and 1996. I think both figures suggest otherwise. Consistent with an expanding electorate, the Democrats’ votes increased during the Perot period (1988-2000), despite Perot’s attracting 20 and 8 percent of the vote in his two contests, respectively. In contrast, the Republican vote dove when Perot was on the ballot. In 1996, for instance, Dole earned a paltry 20.2 percent of the eligible voter pool.

It’s almost as of candidate effects do matter, especially on the GOP side. Someone who can get people off the sidelines can really make a difference. If someone can’t… well, ask Bob Dole.

Trump wasn’t my first, second, or even my 16th choice but, if he doesn’t implode, he could score a higher share of eligible voters than any GOP candidate in a long time.

There are 10 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Mendel Member
    Mendel Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Agree on the general admiration of Trende as a neutral and usually good thinker; and agree that he got this one very wrong.

    • #1
    • May 31, 2016, at 3:32 PM PDT
    • Like
  2. DocJay Inactive

    These candidates matter. They both plain stink and it’s primarily side effects of their presidency people want.

    Of course Trump can win. Scotus , not Hillary, and whatever pablum the natives need. Their ya go.

    • #2
    • May 31, 2016, at 3:41 PM PDT
    • Like
  3. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge

    They left out that HRC will be the first womyn POTUS. The historic aspect of her candidacy will cause her to rally and pull a larger percentage of her womyn minority support base, a minority base that actually outnumbers the majority. In addition a large number of men will want to vote for her to prove how open minded they are. In the end HRC walks away with this election in a landslide. I am not sure why people do not understand this.

    • #3
    • May 31, 2016, at 6:56 PM PDT
    • Like
  4. Mendel Member
    Mendel Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Fake John/Jane Galt: In addition a large number of men will want to vote for her to prove how open minded they are. In the end HRC walks away with this election in a landslide.

    I feel like I have read this comment from you several hundred times, FJJG….

    My only response is: if so many people will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman, why did she have such a hard time closing the deal against an old white man among liberal voters?

    The woman card will have some value, but this primary has shown that it’s not an ace when Hillary holds it.

    • #4
    • May 31, 2016, at 6:58 PM PDT
    • Like
  5. GrannyDude Member

    Mendel:

    Fake John/Jane Galt: In addition a large number of men will want to vote for her to prove how open minded they are. In the end HRC walks away with this election in a landslide.

    I feel like I have read this comment from you several hundred times, FJJG….

    My only response is: if so many people will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman, why did she have such a hard time closing the deal against an old white man among liberal voters?

    The woman card will have some value, but this primary has shown that it’s not an ace when Hillary holds it.

    Yeah. I’ve met a few people—women of a certain age, mostly—who care that she’s a woman…of a certain age…but most of the people I know who are planning to vote for Hillary are doing so because a.) they generally agree with general Democratic positions, kind of and b.) they find her somewhat less terrifying than Trump.

    • #5
    • May 31, 2016, at 7:09 PM PDT
    • Like
  6. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge

    Mendel:

    Fake John/Jane Galt: In addition a large number of men will want to vote for her to prove how open minded they are. In the end HRC walks away with this election in a landslide.

    I feel like I have read this comment from you several hundred times, FJJG….

    My only response is: if so many people will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman, why did she have such a hard time closing the deal against an old white man among liberal voters?

    The woman card will have some value, but this primary has shown that it’s not an ace when Hillary holds it.

    Hard time closing the deal? Against Sanders? Was there ever any doubt that she is the Democrat nominee? I never had one. Their whole primary process has been a yawn. The Dems are just getting their base good and wound up for its attack on the GOP. I notice there are only minor incidents with the Dems protesting each other but where ever DJT shows up a very energetic Dem protestors are there first. The Dems are just letting Sanders run the radical side and he is having fun doing it. A last hurrah of an old socialist and all that.

    Yes, I have brought this topic up a couple of times. Nobody seems to want to talk about it. Everybody seems content beating on Trump or making excuses for him. Oddly the same points about Trump over and over ………

    • #6
    • May 31, 2016, at 7:24 PM PDT
    • Like
  7. Austin Murrey Inactive

    Kate Braestrup:

    Mendel:

    Fake John/Jane Galt: In addition a large number of men will want to vote for her to prove how open minded they are. In the end HRC walks away with this election in a landslide.

    I feel like I have read this comment from you several hundred times, FJJG….

    My only response is: if so many people will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman, why did she have such a hard time closing the deal against an old white man among liberal voters?

    The woman card will have some value, but this primary has shown that it’s not an ace when Hillary holds it.

    Yeah. I’ve met a few people—women of a certain age, mostly—who care that she’s a woman…of a certain age…but most of the people I know who are planning to vote for Hillary are doing so because a.) they generally agree with general Democratic positions, kind of and b.) they find her somewhat less terrifying than Trump.

    That’s funny – I’m planning to vote for Trump because a.) I generally agree with general Republican positions, kind of and b.) I find him somewhat less terrifying than Hillary.

    We really can all get along!

    • #7
    • June 2, 2016, at 8:06 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. Misthiocracy got drunk and Member
    Misthiocracy got drunk and Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Fake John/Jane Galt:They left out that HRC will be the first womyn POTUS. The historic aspect of her candidacy will cause her to rally and pull a larger percentage of her womyn minority support base, a minority base that actually outnumbers the majority. In addition a large number of men will want to vote for her to prove how open minded they are. In the end HRC walks away with this election in a landslide. I am not sure why people do not understand this.

    I would hypothesize that a candidate’s gender is much more of a factor when the candidate is a Democrat.

    That is, more people will vote for a Democratic Party candidate ‘just because she’s a woman’ then would vote for a Republican Party candidate ‘just because she’s a woman’.

    Condi Rice’s gender wouldn’t be sufficient for her to beat a random Democratic Party male candidate, but Hillary’s gender might be enough for her to beat a random Republican Party male candidate.

    Republican voters wouldn’t hold a female candidate’s gender against her. They simply wouldn’t consider it a top-10 reason to vote for her, let alone the #1 reason.

    Democrats, on the other hand, are seemingly willing to forgive anything of a female candidate.

    • #8
    • June 2, 2016, at 8:07 AM PDT
    • Like
  9. Hypatia Inactive

    Misthiocracy:

    Fake John/Jane Galt:They left out that HRC will be the first womyn POTUS. The historic aspect of her candidacy will cause her to rally and pull a larger percentage of her womyn minority support base, a minority base that actually outnumbers the majority. In addition a large number of men will want to vote for her to prove how open minded they are. In the end HRC walks away with this election in a landslide. I am not sure why people do not understand this.

    I would hypothesize that a candidate’s gender is much more of a factor when the candidate is a Democrat.

    That is, more people will vote for a Democratic Party candidate ‘just because she’s a woman’ then would vote for a Republican Party candidate ‘just because she’s a woman’.

    Condi Rice’s gender wouldn’t be sufficient for her to beat a random Democratic Party male candidate, but Hillary’s gender might be enough for her to beat a random Republican Party male candidate.

    Republican voters wouldn’t hold a female candidate’s gender against her. They simply wouldn’t consider it a top-10 reason to vote for her, let alone the #1 reason.

    Democrats, on the other hand, are seemingly willing to forgive anything of a female candidate.

    That’s interesting! H’mmm, yeah, maybe the Dems will forgive anything of a Dem. woman—but oh my, are they savage on GOP women!!

    Look at Gov. Palin, remorselessly satirized as an airhead just cuz she’s pretty! Look, while we can still glimpse the episode in history’s rear view mirror, at their cruel, sexist, bullying treatment of Harriet Meirs (Bush’s counsel whose name he floated for SCOTUS). Look how it’s OK to make fun of Ann Coulter’s slenderness, call her a stick insect–even to suggest that she has a penis! ((Anomalous that the Left finds that so hilarious; you’d think to them, with their ruthless privileging of the allegedly transgendered, that would be a compliment, but no–it’s guffawed at like public toilet graffiti) .

    Months ago I heard a black female “contributor” , Jemu somebody, call Trump a “douche bag” on a Sunday morning broadcast. She was not bleeped. No one even reacted. It was never mentioned by anyone.

    So, I mean, if you’re a Dem, and you’re holding both the race card and the gender card–the sky’s the limit!

    But those cards are both bottom of the deck if you’re a Republican. Remember the sexist, mean-spirited savaging of poor Mrs. Ben Carson.

    ive said before, though–if it’s Trump v Clinton, I’m counting on sexism to save the day for the GOP.

    • #9
    • June 2, 2016, at 8:40 AM PDT
    • Like
  10. David March Thatcher

    As someone who has actually got people elected to office my general feelings are similar to Trendes. The only thing I disagree with his analysis is that I think Trumps appeal to blacks and natural celebrity will probably double on election day.

    After Obama no one who isn’t going to vote Democratic is going to be in a general rush to vote for a ‘woman.’ They already went one better. Now its old hat.

    • #10
    • June 2, 2016, at 10:00 AM PDT
    • Like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.