The Battle of the Polling Methods

Time for Change Model (Implications for local politics)

by Alex Patton | Jul 16, 2015 | Political Consulting, Political Research

This week Politico featured an article The End of the 2016 Election Is Closer Than You Think    The Politico article is a fantastic read, but doesn’t go into the particulars that I would like to explore.

Yes, the Politico article in someways scooped a theme I have been working on for sometime on this blog.  In the past I have been exploring the formation of political environments and asking “Do Campaigns Really Matter?”

• Topic 1:  The race to 270 is not as fluid as many would think.
• Topic 2:  The particular case of Alachua County asking – Do Campaigns Matter?
• Topic 3:  How did  a Republican Mayor get elected in dark Blue Alachua County?
• Topic 4:  How to break Alachua County’s Political Environment or Hegemony?

Time for Change Model – Predicting POTUS elections

There are many reasons for developing and using models.  Often models are used to present a hypothesis in a clear manner.  We argue about models, back test them, refine them, and then use them to predict outcomes.

One of the most interesting models in Presidential elections is Alan Abramowitz’s Time for Change Model based on what is now referred to as the campaign fundamentals.   Abramowitz has since revised his model, and we will look at both versions of the models.

The first Abramowitz model was:

 PV=47.3+(.107*NETAPP)+(.541*Q2GDP)+(4.4*TERM1INC)

• PV stands for the predictive share of the majority party vote of the incumbent president
• NETAPP stands for the incumbent president’s net approval rating (approval-disapproval) in final Gallup poll in June
• Q2GDP stands for the annualized growth rate of real GDP in the second quarter of the election year, and
• TERM1INC stands for the presence or absence of an first term incumbent in the race

“This basic model has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in the last 5 presidential elections with an average error of 2 percentage points.” -Abramowitz

So, why change the model?

Because in the last 4 Presidential elections, the basic model overestimated the winning candidate’s share of the votes.   “This suggests that the growing partisan polarization is resulting in a decreased advantage for candidates favored by election fundamentals including first term incumbents.: – Abramowitz

The revised Abramowitz model is:

 PV=46.9+(.105*NETAPP)+(.635*Q2GDP)+(5.22*TERM1INC)-(2.76*POLARIZATION)

• POLARIZATION – takes on the value of 1 when there is a first term incumbent running or in open-seat elections when the incumbent president has a net approval rating > 0; it takes on a value of -1 when there is not a first-term incumbent and the incumbent president has a net approval rating <0.

“Adding the Polarization correction to the model substantially improves its overall accuracy and explanatory power” – Abramowitz

FRIENDLY REMINDER:  The outcome is determined by the electoral college, not the popular vote predicted by this model.

Where does the model stand now?

NETAPP – the net approval of President Obama

If we look at Gallup’s polling results for President Obama’s Approval Rating – we can see currently it is +3%.

(What is surprising for most in Conservative circles is just how much the President’s net approval rating has been positive for his two terms.   His average approval from the beginning of his first term to the writing of this post is 47%.)

Q2GDP (annualized growth rate of real GDP in the second quarter of the election year).  The number obviously has not been released yet, but we can look at trends.

TERM1INC – We know there is no incumbent in this election, so we KNOW this variable is 0.

POLARIZATION – We assume President Obama has a net + approval rating, so the variable will be set to 1.

Thought Exercise

While the model specifically states the GDP needs to be from Q2 of the election year (2016), as nerds we can have some fun.

If we were to perform the calculation now simulating an election this year with the following variables:

• using the current net approval rating of +3,
• the Average of the GDP Change over Obama’s term of +2.175%, (using the -.2 would be cruel)
• TERM1INC =0, and
• POLARIZATION = 1,

we calculate the incumbent party (Democrat) predicted vote % to be 45.8%.

Abramowitz Model

Below is an interactive model that we can explore, plugging in your own variables.

Type in the yellow boxes and the sheet will give you the results – (incrementally increasing the GDP by the variable you provide)

The Abramowitz Time for Change Model is also inserted on a clean page all to reduce clutter for your enjoyment.

Ramifications

PV=46.9+(.105*NETAPP)+(.635*Q2GDP)+(5.22*TERM1INC)-(2.76*POLARIZATION)

As you can see, the model weights the GDP much higher than the net approval rating (by a factor of 6x), but the power of incumbency is considerable.

The model provides the incumbent party with a base of 46.9%, then adjusts for Net Approval, then adjusts for GDP, then adjusts for incumbency advantage/incumbency fatigue.

For example, if President Obama is +8 on Net Approval, the GDP change would need to be +8% change in Q2 2016 for the incumbent, Democrat party to break 50% with no incumbent running. (Note don’t forget to change TERM1INC variable to 0)

Admittedly, it is too early to use a model that explicitly states it is Q2 of the election year, but we can clearly remember Carville’s “It’s the economy stupid!”

If you believe the model, the next 12 month’s events are critical in determining the 2016 outcome and there is little the 40 people running for President can do about it – except drive down the net approval rating of the President.  Get ready!

Ramifications for Local Elections

As we observe with my prior posts, Politico’s article, and the exploration of Alan Abramowitz forecasting model, the central thesis is this:  the political environment is formed for success or failure well before any candidate announces a run for office.   Campaigns do not change political environments but rather are a product of them.

These macro fundamentals are largely out of the control of Presidential candidates and even more so out of the control of state and local candidates.

However, local political environments can be shaped with local issues with a dedicated and consistent effort.   Therefore, I’ll say it again: Attention all interest groups and political actors interested in the upcoming local elections: To be strategic in local elections,  the time to form the political environment is a year before the elections, not the 6 weeks of a campaign before the election date.

The Recipe for Success to Break Inertia in places of Hegemony

by Alex Patton | May 7, 2015 | Political Consulting, Political Research

I anticipate some blow-back on this blog post, but “since my intent is to write something useful to whoever understands it, it has appeared to me more fitting to go directly to the effectual truth of the thing than to the imagination of it” (Machiavelli 61).

In a previous post, we dared to ponder the question, “Do political campaigns really matter?”  We looked at the curious case in Alachua County where two Republican campaigns were run in the same election cycle – one campaign was essentially a name placed on the ballot; the other campaign was a robust campaign.  We observed a mere 2.2% difference in the results.   We also took note of the complete dominance of the Democratic Party in Alachua County elections.

Hegemony:  leadership or dominance, especially by one country or social group over others.

But we also noted the recent success of more conservative members of the Gainesville City Commission – arguably the most conservative commission in 15 years.

How do we reconcile these two things and what can we gleam from the situation in regards to campaigns and politics?

The Search for Positive Deviance

The Search for Positive Deviance

Anytime we start a new analysis, we look to see if anyone has already done the work and we look for positive deviance.

Positive deviance (PD) is an approach to behavioral and social change based on the observation that in any community, there are people whose uncommon but successful behaviors or strategies enable them to find better solutions to a problem than their peers, despite facing similar challenges and having no extra resources or knowledge than their peers. These individuals are referred to as positive deviants Wikipedia – positive deviance

We had mentioned before, that since 2002, 4 Republicans have won Alachua County in county-wide, partisan races.

Let’s examine these campaigns:

In the 2010 USSEN race, Senator Marco Rubio was the top voter in a three way race.  So, our first strategy would be to split the hegemony’s power with a two way split.    For now, we table that suggestion.

In the 2010 County Commission race, Republican Susan Baird defeated long time incumbent and current Democrat county chair, Cynthia Chestnut.

In 2006, long time incumbent Republican Agriculture Commissioner Charles H. Bronson beat unknown Eric Copeland after Copeland switched from a CFO campaign after fellow Democrat Alex Sink got into the CFO campaign.  (You knew Copeland was in trouble when he launched his Agriculture Commissioner campaign with “The incumbent has done an adequate job representing the interests of Agriculture in Florida.”)

In 2004, long time incumbent Republican Steve Oelrich beat neophyte challenger Bill Davis for Alachua Sheriff.

If we look for positive deviance in all three of these victories, we see the Democrats fielding poor candidates, neophyte candidates or in the case of Cynthia Chestnut – fielding a candidate that did not campaign at all.

However, the one thing the above three positive deviances share : the Democrats screwed up.  (It is not my intention to take away from the Republican campaigns because they had to be in a legitimate position to take advantage of the Democrats’ mess up.)

If we also consider the Mayor’s race of 2013, when Republican Ed Braddy beat Democrat, incumbent Craig Lowe, we see a similar event – the Democrats screwed up.

So, we have identified a second strategy : field good, legitimate Republican candidates and hope and pray the Democrats screw up.

But there is another item the winning campaigns share which brings us to the third and I believe the most important strategy: the political environment was formed before the campaigns ever took place.

If we reconsider the case of Craig Lowe, we can observe a series of events that happened well before his re-election campaign ever started.

Criag Lowe’s first term was highlighted by:

• charges of favoritism in hiring Lowe’s campaign manager as a city employee,
• Lowe’s defense of the GREC biomass energy plant and electric rate increases, and
• Lowe’s heavy handed moves to limit citizen input into government proceedings.

Another local example is the biomass issue.  Nathan Skop based his campaign on the disaster that is the GREC biomass contract.  He is a subject matter expert and foretold all the calamity barreling towards Gainesville.  Skop was right on the issue, but lost the campaign.  Why?  The political environment had not been formed successfully – yet.  As the issue matured and macerated,  the City of Gainesville has witnessed significant political change on the City Commission.

Yet another local example is from 10 plus years ago with the fight against Alachua’s comprehensive plan – Lee Pinkoson and Cynthia Chestnut were successful in ousting two incumbents because the political environment had been formed before they entered the campaign.

This is the recipe for success!   I can tell you from experience; a lot of people aren’t going to like the taste.

The Recipe for Success

The time voters are most open to persuasion is during non-campaign contexts.

These elected officials must never have a week off.  These elected officials must have every move examined with a ruthless intensity and an inexorable contrasting of values.   The critique must be unrelenting, and the criticism must garner press coverage.  The effort required is a long, uncivil, and confrontational process; it requires resources.

The goal is to drive the negatives of those in power to as close to 50% or higher or strategically place them on the wrong side of public opinion on issues –  before any Republican campaign comes into a nascent state.

Here is the catch:  There are virtually no organizations or groups willing to pay the price to do what must be done for the length of time it must be done.   Not many people or organizations will risk the press labeling them malcontents or gadflies or uncivil.

Not many people are willing to be the “bad guy” for anything other than a single issue and a short period of time.

The political party can not take the lead role, because they minute they take the lead, the issue becomes partisan and it forces voters put on their partisan, team jerseys.  The critique must be received before voters put on their partisan jersey because once the critique is perceived as purely partisan, the critique will not be considered.  The party and politically partisan groups can play a supporting role.

The local ‘advocacy’ business groups will not play this natural role because they fear retribution and risking their prestigious goodwill.   These groups continue to attempt to play an apolitical role in a political system and continue to believe politics is a genteel exercise in rationality that can be massaged and performed outside the public arena.  These advocacy groups must understand the role of Solomon can be effectively played only when there are two competing sides presenting.

Political change is not rational, genteel, private nor delicate; it is the opposite.

Conclusion

To review the possible strategies:

• Do nothing and accept the status quo.
• Field good Republican candidates and force three way contests with liberals being 2/3 of the candidates.
• Field good Republican candidates and wait for the Democrats to screw up.
• Put in the long, controversial work needed in the form of a permanent campaign in order to form the political environment well before candidate campaigns start.

I have been espousing this recipe for several years because I believe in seizing one’s own fate.  I have discussed these ideas with other political experts in depth and they agree with the recipe.  So far the idea has been considered offensive and met with scorn.

I realize this recipe is controversial, but again my goal is to write something useful, not imaginary.  To change the hegemony, a “political bad guy” must operate 365 days a year.

Said nicely:  To make change permanent, there must be a competing viewpoint offered on a permanent, consistent and unrelenting basis.  In order to do it correctly, there must be a institutionalized effort comprised of people that do not fear retribution.

Any community that desires change in a hegemony does a tremendous disservice to any candidate when they complain behind closed doors only or speak up 6 weeks before election day.

The heavy lifting and dirty work must be done before and outside candidate campaigns – after all, even Jesus needed John the Baptist to lay the groundwork for his work to be successful.