![]() The following post is adapted from an email conversation I had with a good friend recently. Since November we have heard many explanations about why Democrats lost the Presidential election. It’s inflation, it’s Joe Rogan’s influence, it’s anger over the Democratic nomination process etc. I’d like to contribute what I believe is the best theory (most parsimonious and sensical on its face) about who wins Presidential elections in modern politics. This is not a political science theory and it’s not even something I’ve tested empirically- and for that, maybe I’ll regret this post. Instead, it’s a simple combination of two observations I’ve heard. Here it is: The winner of the Presidency is almost always the least "establishment feeling" of the two major candidates. I'm combining two insights from others to get here. First, a few years ago, I heard someone- possibly David Axelrod- make a smart observation: People who win the presidency have one foot in the party apparatus, and one foot outside of it; they walk the party establishment line. This means the candidate cannot be a total party outsider since they need party support and infrastructure to run a successful campaign, but they can't be so lodged within the system that they are devout partisans who are incapable of pushing back on the party establishment. They need to distinguish themselves just enough. The second observation comes from Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail. Writing about the Democratic nominee, he stated, "McGovern suffered the liability of being what Robert Kennedy once called, ‘the most decent man in the Senate.’ Which is not quite the same thing as being the best candidate for President of the United States. For that, McGovern would need at least one dark kinky streak of Mick Jagger in his soul". This quote is about establishment politics in general rather than party establishment politics. The “best” candidate is someone who feels less establishment in terms of aesthetics, personality and mannerisms. Overall, the person who wins the presidency in recent years is the less stuffy establishment figure of the two candidates- with two exceptions. This makes sense on its face considering Independents often decide election outcomes at the margins. Who should Independents be drawn to? Less party establishment/less establishment figures- of course. Let’s take these two observations and see who wins and loses since the 70s. The winner is bolded. Carter v. Ford: Carter is lesser stuffy establishment feeling figure of the two. He’s a governor (Washington outsider) and peanut farmer and goes to music festivals. Ford is the stuffier party establishment figure who loses. Reagan v. Carter: Reagan is now the lesser stuffy establishment feeling of the two. He’s also a governor (Washington outsider), and former actor with a cowboy aesthetic- the Mick Jagger streak. Carter is now the stuffier party establishment figure who loses. Reagan v. Mondale: Reagan is still the lesser stuffy establishment feeling of the two. Mondale, the former Carter VP and Senator, is the stuffier party establishment figure who loses. Bush Sr. v. Dukakis. EXCEPTION #1. Bush is the epitome of “establishment feeling”, although Dukakis comes close despite being a governor. However, Bush is gliding off Reagan's immense popularity since he was his VP. Bush Sr. wins. Clinton v. Bush Sr: Clinton is the lesser stuffy establishment feeling of the two. He is a governor (Washington outsider) and plays the saxophone. He has more of the Mick Jagger streak. Bush Sr. is clearly the stuffy establishment figure who loses. Clinton v. Dole: Clinton is clearly the less stuffy establishment figure. Dole loses. George W. Bush v. Gore: This election was clearly close and arguably tainted, but I am nonetheless including it. GWB sounds like the establishment given his family name, but compared to Gore, he's not. He's the governor outsider with cowboy imagery on a ranch in Texas. He has more of the Mick Jagger streak. Gore is the stuffier, establishment politician. George W. Bush v. Kerry: Bush is still the lesser establishment figure of the two. Kerry is a stereotype of a stuffy establishment figure. Obama v. McCain: Obama is the less establishment figure and famously has the dark kinky Mick Jagger streak. McCain tries to be the outsider (“maverick”), but he's not compared to Obama. Obama v. Romney: Obama is still comparatively the less stuffy establishment figure with the Mick Jagger streak. Romney is a Washington outsider because he is a Governor, and yet still feels like a robotic, stuffy establishment figure in comparison. Remember: this is about one’s position AND their aesthetic/mannerisms to produce a full image. Trump v. Hillary Clinton. Now we have a test. Neither is the person who walks the establishment/non-establishment party line. Americans must choose between the clear-cut establishment figure and the clear-cut outsider. They pick the less stuffy establishment figure. Biden v. Trump: This is EXCEPTION #2. The clear-cut, less stuffy establishment figure (Trump) is president and mismanaging a public health crisis. Americans pick the party establishment figure. Would this have happened without the COVID crisis? We don’t know. Trump v. Harris: Trump, despite "becoming the Republican establishment" in the eyes of elite liberals, is almost certainly not seen this way by voters. He is comparatively the less stuffy establishment figure and he wins. Whether this trend will hold in the future is uncertain, and much of it could be dependent on the fact that there’s usually been one candidate who is fairly “establishment feeling” in each cycle. If, say, there had been a match-up between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders or a populist who had not been in Congress, I’m not sure how that would have turned out. Edit (Friday, Jan 17): It's also possible that my interpretation of who is less "establishment feeling" is no different from a more-difficult-to-measure "charisma" variable. There could be substantial overlap between those two concepts and it's simply that the candidate with more charisma tends to win. If either of these ideas holds any truth, it would imply that the "incumbent advantage" is not as important as we believe it is; it's simply that the opposition party has nominated comparatively sterile, formulaic "politicians" for decades, thereby handing incumbents the election. Either way, this is fun to think about and I welcome any insights.
1 Comment
Kirti
1/20/2025 10:32:05 am
I had a similar inkling. This is a fascinating. I do think that in recent years (I can only speak on recent years, as I have only been an eligible voter for two years) this is not just about America's tendency to sway to the more "charismatic" leader, but is also influenced by an effort from the "charsimatic" candidate's party's side to paint the other one as, well, stuffy, and to paint themselves as less stuffy. (Example: "Sleepy Joe" vs. the "Business Man" rhetoric). I think you are correct, and political strategists have caught on to this.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2025
Categories |