csen
07-15-2007, 10:13 AM
Here's an email I just sent off to some friends of mine:
With financial markets, people spend a lot of time thinking about potential long-shot events. Oil going to $100. Another 9/11. Another '87 crash. A recession. The credit bubble popping. Basically, all sorts of black swans. Yet with presidential elections, which have far more black swans than the markets, people spend all their time thinking about the front-runners in the polls, ignoring black swan possibilities. For instance, take the 2008 election. In old media circles, the consensus at this stage would be that the Democrat ticket will be Clinton/Obama, with the Republican nominee being either Giuliani, Romney, or Fred Thompson, with McCain turfing after the release of his Q2 fundraising. Let's use a little quantitative analysis, stock market-style, to see if this makes sense. Since FDR's death in 1945, there have been five Democrat presidents: Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton. Looking at their backgrounds, Truman and LBJ were Vice Presidents first, Kennedy was a northern Senator with a political dynasty behind him, youth and charisma, and still needed a Southern VP (LBJ) to win one of the closest elections in history. Carter and Clinton were no-name Southern governors (both polled in the low single digits a year before their elections). Race and gender aside, Clinton and Obama do not represent the mold of successful Democratic presidential candidates.
Looking at the Republican field, McCain is on his way out due to his unflinching support for the war in Iraq and amnesty for illegal immigrants. A July Gallup Poll survey states, "Immigration ranks second behind the war in Iraq in Gallup's latest update on the most important problem facing the nation." Regarding the war, Gallup also says, "The only war that compares to the current conflict in terms of public opposition is the Vietnam War. By one measure, the current war in Iraq has matched and possibly eclipsed the Vietnam War. From 1965-1973, opposition to the war reached a high of 61% in May 1971, compared with the current 62% opposition to the Iraq War." Giuliani, Romney, and Fred Thompson all support continued military presence in Iraq, and have made statements towards increasing our presence there. Looking back at past Republican presidents, Eisenhower was a war hero who campaigned on ending the Korean war. Nixon was Eisenhower's vice president who promised that "new leadership will end the war and win the peace in the Pacific." Following Nixon we've had the Reagan/Bush/Bush trifecta, all spawning from Reagan's charisma, being a governor, and "bringing California to the table." So we have Republican frontrunners with an unclear pecking order who all support an unpopular war, and Democrat frontrunners who come from backgrounds that typically don't win presidencies, and who both have scarlet "Yeas" attached to their names on the immigration bill, which is the stealth issue in the race. Frankly, I don't think any of the above will win the presidency.
If we think emotional issues ultimately decide campaigns, then it will be impossible for anyone to win without opposing the war in Iraq. Could Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson survive the biggest flip flop in modern presidential elections? Can Clinton and Obama survive supporting the radioactive immigration bill, alienating the anti-war Dems (Cindy Sheehan et al), and being northern Senators, who historically haven't won? And what role will the internet play with no obvious winner? As hard as it is for me to believe, when you factor in stances on Iraq, immigration, and support on the internet, there's only one candidate left. And that's why I believe Ron Paul will be the next President of the United States.
With financial markets, people spend a lot of time thinking about potential long-shot events. Oil going to $100. Another 9/11. Another '87 crash. A recession. The credit bubble popping. Basically, all sorts of black swans. Yet with presidential elections, which have far more black swans than the markets, people spend all their time thinking about the front-runners in the polls, ignoring black swan possibilities. For instance, take the 2008 election. In old media circles, the consensus at this stage would be that the Democrat ticket will be Clinton/Obama, with the Republican nominee being either Giuliani, Romney, or Fred Thompson, with McCain turfing after the release of his Q2 fundraising. Let's use a little quantitative analysis, stock market-style, to see if this makes sense. Since FDR's death in 1945, there have been five Democrat presidents: Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton. Looking at their backgrounds, Truman and LBJ were Vice Presidents first, Kennedy was a northern Senator with a political dynasty behind him, youth and charisma, and still needed a Southern VP (LBJ) to win one of the closest elections in history. Carter and Clinton were no-name Southern governors (both polled in the low single digits a year before their elections). Race and gender aside, Clinton and Obama do not represent the mold of successful Democratic presidential candidates.
Looking at the Republican field, McCain is on his way out due to his unflinching support for the war in Iraq and amnesty for illegal immigrants. A July Gallup Poll survey states, "Immigration ranks second behind the war in Iraq in Gallup's latest update on the most important problem facing the nation." Regarding the war, Gallup also says, "The only war that compares to the current conflict in terms of public opposition is the Vietnam War. By one measure, the current war in Iraq has matched and possibly eclipsed the Vietnam War. From 1965-1973, opposition to the war reached a high of 61% in May 1971, compared with the current 62% opposition to the Iraq War." Giuliani, Romney, and Fred Thompson all support continued military presence in Iraq, and have made statements towards increasing our presence there. Looking back at past Republican presidents, Eisenhower was a war hero who campaigned on ending the Korean war. Nixon was Eisenhower's vice president who promised that "new leadership will end the war and win the peace in the Pacific." Following Nixon we've had the Reagan/Bush/Bush trifecta, all spawning from Reagan's charisma, being a governor, and "bringing California to the table." So we have Republican frontrunners with an unclear pecking order who all support an unpopular war, and Democrat frontrunners who come from backgrounds that typically don't win presidencies, and who both have scarlet "Yeas" attached to their names on the immigration bill, which is the stealth issue in the race. Frankly, I don't think any of the above will win the presidency.
If we think emotional issues ultimately decide campaigns, then it will be impossible for anyone to win without opposing the war in Iraq. Could Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson survive the biggest flip flop in modern presidential elections? Can Clinton and Obama survive supporting the radioactive immigration bill, alienating the anti-war Dems (Cindy Sheehan et al), and being northern Senators, who historically haven't won? And what role will the internet play with no obvious winner? As hard as it is for me to believe, when you factor in stances on Iraq, immigration, and support on the internet, there's only one candidate left. And that's why I believe Ron Paul will be the next President of the United States.