According to one prominent political-science theory, a candidate of the party that is incumbent in the White House is nearly certain to win an election if he possesses at least six of 13 possible "keys". He does not need all, or most, or even a majority. He needs six.
Each key is a binary question, allowing only yes or no answer, though sometimes the answer will require an exercise of judgment, not mere arithmetic or observation.
For clarity -- for many of these keys the ABSENCE of something is taken as a positive. So a "yes" answer has the form, "yes, it is true that X did not happen." With that understood, let us start through the list and its 2024 application. We are looking at each election from the point of view of the political party incumbent in the White House during the election.
1. Mandate from the House of Representatives.
After the last election (the mid-term election prior to the Presidential election under study) did the incumbent President's party have more or fewer seats in the House of Representatives that it had at the conclusion of the mid-term before that? For example, during the election campaign of 2020 one would have considered both the 2018 and the 2016 campaigns for the House. As it happens, the Republicans lost seats both times. They lost 6 in 2016 and lost 41 in 2018. So, entering the 2020 campaign, this answer was a definite "no" for Trump.
Now, looking at 2020 and 2022 from the Democrats' point of view, they lost 13 seats in the House in 2020 and another 9 in 2022. So this, likewise, is a No for them.
2. Was the incumbent party's nomination awarded WITHOUT serious contest?
May require the exercise of some judgment in some cases, but I think it safe to say "yes" on this one for Biden. Dean Phillips? Sorry, that doesn't cut it. But you do get a consolation prize -- your photo in my blog, above!
3. Is the incumbent party's candidate also the sitting president? [Note for example that the year 2000 posed a far greater challenge for the Democratic Party than had the year 1996.]
Answer for 2024: "yes".
4. The absence of any significant third party or independent campaign?
This one is up in the air. And it is the reason so much fire power is being aimed at RFK Jr.
5. Short-term economy. The positive key here is the absence of a recession during the general-election campaign.
So far things look good for a "yes" answer for Biden here.
6. Long-term economy. Has real economic per capita growth during the four-year term ending exceeded the same statistic for the four years before that?
I'm too lazy to look this up right now. Let us call it a "no" for Biden.
7. Policy change. Has the incumbent administration created major changes in US policy?
I think the answer is "yes" here. I'll mention three examples. First, consider the "hard infrastructure" package. It constitutes an infusion of more than $1 trillion into roads, bridges, etc., including a sizeable component for broadband internet and EV recharging. Second, Biden does seem ready to re-classify marijuana -- a very long past due and and a major change. Finally, he has supported (and even walked a picket line for) old-fashioned labor unions in an unprecedented way that may have played some part in their new vigor.
8. Social unrest. Did the incumbent avoid sustained social unrest during the period? [Consider for example the George Floyd related disturbances in 2020 - bad news for the incumbent party'.]
This may be a judgment call on which opinions will differ for 2024 so far. Campus unrest during graduation season? Yes, but that may not be enough. [The Columbia situation was handled in a restrained fashion that did not especially recall 1968.] I'd give Biden a "yes" so far on this.
9. No major scandal?
Republicans in the House have done their best to kick one up but, in essence, this is a "yes, there has been none" answer.
10. Foreign policy failure. The incumbent administration has no marked foreign or defense policy failure?
I would say Biden has allowed himself to be so thoroughly manipulated by Netanyahu that this HAS BEEN a foreign policy failure. This is a "no."
11. Foreign policy success. The incumbent administration has had at least one marked foreign or defense policy success?
Yes -- it got the funding through both houses for continued resistance to Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
12. Incumbent party candidate has charisma or is a national hero?
Sorry: no.
13. Challenging party's candidate has no charisma and is not a national hero?
Somehow his base finds Trump charisma-adjacent, I guess. (?)
ANYWAY -- the outlook looks good on balance for Biden and the incumbent party. I count seven of the 13 that are either "yes" or "looks good for yes so far" there: 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11.
I have been giving thought to arrogance, pride, narcissism, humility and other human attributes and failings. My scale of things runs sort of like the hospital scale for measurement of pain---the old 1 to 10 measure. Humility is low; arrogance and pride are high. The distinction between arrogance and pride is thin, which, to me, is indicative of how quickly things go south, and further shows exactly how predictable the Trump phenomenon was. Insofar as the movement of justice is edging away from dealing decisively with outstanding issues, I figure Trump to put up a fight for re-election. Why would he not? He is being given at least implicit encouragement.
ReplyDeleteThank you, as always, for your contribution! My own thought is that at this moment the rest of us ought to worry about the machinery surrounding Trump rather than Trump himself. The guy sitting in court in New York four days a week looks like a beaten man. But the machinery that uses him as a mascot is not by any means beaten -- the machinery operated by Richard Spencer, Andy Nowicki, Stephan Miller, and -- yes -- Hope Hicks, she of the convenient tears. THEY are arrogant while remaining largely anonymous, the most dangerous sort of arrogance.
DeleteQuoting the words of Ken Wilber: and just so.
ReplyDelete