Forget the polls, the pundits, the politics, the Presidential election is all about the “Law of 14″ and Freshness.
This article from Jonathan Rauch in reasononline about who can and cannot win the Presidency, is 5 years old*, but just as valid today as ever. I love quantitative rules applied to non-quantitative situations, and I bet other readers of this blog may as well.
I am a bit worried about injecting politics into our site, but my feeling is that since the Freshness “Law of 14″ is all about numbers, we can handle a single post. [Disclaimer: I'm not voting for either McCain or Obama, I've voted Libertarian for the last 20 years.]
Here’s a summary of Rauch’s “Law of 14″, but I’d encourage you to read the entire article:
As every grocer knows, many products have sell-by dates. Bread lasts a day or two, milk maybe a week. Well, presidential aspirants have a sell-by date, too. They last 14 years.[...]
With only one exception since the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, no one has been elected president who took more than 14 years to climb from his first major elective office to election as either president or vice president. [...]
“Major office” means governorship, Congress, or the mayoralty of a big city: elective posts that, unlike offices such as lieutenant governor or state attorney general, can position their holder as national contender.[...]
Let’s handicap this year’s race:
- Obama (4 years after election to Senate in 2004) = Fresh.
- McCain (26 years since election to Congress in 1982) = Not Fresh.
That indicates a win for Obama.
This is no consolation for the fans of Hillary Clinton. She was Fresh enough to have won this year (8 years since election to the Senate in 2000) or in 2012 were the Republicans to win this year, but a win by Obama this year puts her next likely chance off until 2016 when she will be Not Fresh.
Could Republicans have given themselves a Freshness chance this year? Yes. Mitt Romney (6 years since election to Governor in 2002) was Fresh enough to have won, so was Mike Huckabee (10 years since election to Governor in 1998). Either could be back to win in 2012, only Romney has a chance in 2016.
I know there are other quantitative rules out there about elections. I’d love to hear about them from commenters.
*Updating Rauch’s article for the 2004 Presidential race, John Kerry was 20 years since his election to the Senate in 1984, Not Fresh, and a loser.
Well, there’s the height thing. Since the introduction of TV, the taller candidate has won every presidential election except 2004.
Hmm, except that seems to not actually be true. There were four elections since 1928 where the shorter candidate won. 72, 76, 2000 and 2004.
I think Freshness has something to do with it. I also think eloquence (Obama) and experience (McCain) add to a candidates chances.
Btw, good for you voting Libertarian!
Ah, but experience and eloquence aren’t something that can be quantified the way freshness and height can. But going by this, experience is only useful for a certain amount of time. You can be too experienced, I guess.
“This is no consolation for the fans of Hillary Clinton. She was Fresh enough to have won this year (8 years since election to the Senate in 2000) or in 2012 were the Republicans to win this year, but a win by Obama this year puts her next likely chance off until 2016 when she will be Not Fresh.”
But if McCain wins then this who “Freshness” joke would be voided anyways.
David, there are always exceptions to prove the rule. But I don’t think anyone has to worry about that.
David4, that paragraph about Hillary was meant more about her “Freshness” election opportunities in general, rather than the specific situation we’re in right now.
Really interesting. I mean, especially since it was a month ago where the polls were neck and neck. Now they’re predicting a landslide for Obama and now this…
Tyler, while I’d love to take credit for the “Law of 14″ I can’t, but I can point out that it’s at least 5 years old, so hardly a front runner for Obama.
The GOP had two chances to win this year. One was by nominating Romney as President, the other as VP. When both failed, we failed, and America will now pay a heavy price for the next four years.
We should have known when McCain came in last in Iowa.
Now we just have to see how Obama governs. Will he run this country as a liberal, in which case Republicans will be back with vengeance in 2012, or as a Moderate, in which case he has a chance at eight years.
McCain, I have to say, is the weakest and least exciting choice we have fielded in twenty years. A poorer choice than Bush, even.
I blame Huckabee and Crist respectively, Huckabee for dividing the Christian vote, and Crist for betraying the Florida and US economies by backing McCain for, I believe, political gain. (McCain was on track to lose Florida.)
Picking Palin as VP, while strategic, was a slap in the face to those of us who divided into bigger camps during the Primaries.
Our biggest hope in 2012 is Romney, who may not even run. He is our only hope this election cycle as well, if McCain is man enough to ask Palin to walk away.
Nothing against Palin or women on a ticket by the way. Palin was a strategic choice, and she is helping put Alaska back on the political map, but she not a wise choice for McCain. I would even call her a selfish choice. McCain picked Sarah Palin to reinforce his identity as a Maverick, not because she was the best pick for America in this time of need.
Jed, the thing is that pretty much all that you said sounds like something a Hillary supporter would say about Hillary. Yet it was proven wrong by where Obama is now in the polls. I do think Palin was a big mistake for McCain, but I don’t know that Romney would have automatically been a better choice. There are a lot of factors going on here.
Also, Bill, I read the article and I don’t think VPs are included in the freshness equation for how electable a candidate is. It’s just that the freshness meter stops once they become VP, if they then go on to be president.
Julia, VPs are not part of the equation. I included that info just as an FYI. I did say “they are not the determining factor”, but maybe that’s confusing. I’ll remove that paragraph entirely.
Julia, You are forgetting that Gerald Ford was several inches taller than Jimmy Carter.
Being from Mass I can safely say that Romney is an idiot, he has no right being president.
That said whatever happened to McCain 2000? Can I have him back? Plus Romney should have been McCain’s pick, anyone else should have been McCain’s pick. At least he knows something about anything.
I have been predicting this for months, McCain will win this election, Obama will have 3 million more popular votes through. This race is still extremely close in a lot of major states, and McCain will pull it out because racism is still alive and well in this country.
McCain still has a shot of winning. The race will be closer than what the polls lead you to believe.
Ace, yes, that’s the election of 76 that I listed as one of four exceptions.
There’s the Washington Redskins Football theory too! In the Redskins game most closely preceding the election, the outcome has been an accurate “predictor” of the presidential race since 1936. One important exception exists to this rule: The year 2000 Presidential race was the lone time the predictor failed. At that time, the Dems had reached term limits with Bill Clinton. Term limits may have thrown a wrench into the predictor just this once?
The inidicator: If the Redskins win their football game prior to Election Day, then the incumbent party wins the Presidential race. If the Redskins lose, then the opposing party wins the race.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/redskins.asp
Perhaps the spam filter booted me when I tried to post the Snopes link to the other prominent “predictor” of Presidential Elections:
The year 2000 was the lone exception since 1936 on the following “rule:”
If the Washington Redskins win their football game most closely preceding Election Day, then the incumbent party wins the Presidential election. If the Redskins lose, the opposing party wins the election.
Clutz, our spam filter sometimes works in mysterious ways. I have freed the comment with the snopes link. As a Washington, D.C. native, I am an avid Redskins fan, but I’d guess even here things look good for Obama. The Redskins play the Steelers on the eve of the election. I hope I’m wrong about the Redskins (I don’t care as much about the election), but I’m not sure I see the Steelers losing two games in a row.
Clutz, excellent rule!
The “Law of 14″ has to do with opposition research. The longer one is a Governor or in Congress, the greater the odds are they’ve had quirky votes or personal scandals or something else that can come back and bite them. It also conveys a sense that the person is part of the “establishment.” But McCain really didn’t have any troubling votes or any past associations that hurt him, so I don’t think the “Law of 14″ really applies to this election.
What killed McCain, I think, was the financial crisis and, more importantly, McCain’s failure to have anything to say about that subject. He sat back and allowed Obama to blame the crisis on Republican “deregulation,” which resonated in the general public and ended McCain’s chances.
From a TV/media standpoint, what will interest me the most is research into media bias in this campaign. It’s been the most blatant I’ve ever seen. [Though I am a Republican and believe 90% of media bias favors Democrats, I will also be fair and balanced and say that you can fairly say Fox News favors McCain.] At the same time, media is incredibly unprofitable these days.. Massive layoffs in newsrooms, broadcast news ratings are in the tank, etc. It’d be interesting to study the correlation between the two… Is bias causing the downturn in media profitability, or is bias an attempt by the media to correct a downturn in media profitability caused by other things?
Robert, Bill, and company,
As a native Pittsburgher and a conservative, I have very mixed feelings about the Redskins Rule this year
.
McCain was always going to lose this election because he couldn’t get a decent VP, and for him, that matters because he’s down to his last item on his bucket list. I have a very good friend who worked for the McCain campaign, and his first pick for VP was Romney, but Romney said no. Guiliani and Lieberman also said no. Two other Republican governors said no. Basically, no one was willing to run with him (apparently he’s a real d*&^ to work with) so they pulled Palin out of the hat. They didn’t know anything about her (and vetted her in 4 days) and thought she would just sit back, look pretty, and shut up. Little did they know.
Angie, as a very long time Washington, DC resident I understood the same about McCain. That he personally is a difficult person to deal with.
To others who doubt the Law of 14, come back and visit on November 5!