I wish to comment on an odd comment frequently made by news commentators. Because we now have so much more commentating than before, and because these guys (and women) have to say something, they tend, at times, to “invent” things. That is, they analyze relationships that, at least according to me, do not exist.
Specifically I refer to the (re)election historical “tendencies” of the American public. Let me offer a similar type of analysis that is offered in the field of professional football. These analysts also need to say something different. I suppose that if they say something different then they feel that they earned their pay. You might think that an analyst might simply say, “This Sunday the Dallas Cowboys should beat the New York Giants because they are a better team.” Instead they say something like this: “A team coming off a home win, over a division leader, winning by more than 14, and coming back in the fourth quarter, often experiences a let down on the defense. Thus the Cowboys are favored over the Giants.”
The problem with this is that the players, who really determine who wins the game, are not influenced by this. They do not go into a game and say to each other, “Teams in our situation, in September, in a non-leap year will lose 68% of the time, so let us be demoralized.” Let me illustrate further. The Cowboys play on Thanksgiving. For a long time this was an “odd” game because most teams did not, playing mostly only on Sundays. Thus the Cowboys had a supposed advantage. And their record, after this game, knowing how to handle the extra time off, was very good. However, this was when they had 20 years in a row of non-losing season (all but one were winning seasons). In other words, the Cowboys were a very good team, so their record, on any particular game day, should have been good. In recent years the team has not been so good. No one mentioned its inherent advantage any more, as it seems to have vanished.
That is, historical trends work when they do, and do not when they do not.
My area, again, is politics and not sports. The analysis goes like this. “Obama is in trouble because no president has been reelected when the unemployment rate was over 7.8%.” Really? Let me suppose that this comment is correct. So what? How does history influence today’s voter? I am (mostly) serious when I add that I have also heard the following. “No American president since John Adams has been reelected when the vice president is taking the place of a president elected with a clear majority, after succeeding himself, and coming from a Northern state. This dooms president X.” This supposes that the Americans of the early 1800’s are influenced in the same way, as are those of the 21st Century. It also assumes that the Americans in those old days were actually influenced by such factors.
Can anyone actually imagine a voter saying the following? “Well, I’d like to vote for Mr (or Mrs) X. I agree with him on every issue. However, I referred to my history book last night. Apparently we Americans are bound never to retain the Senate, and change the majority of the House, and change the party of the incumbent Presidency at the same time. So I can’t vote for X. I shall be forced to vote for Y. Damn it!” Will Blacks and Jews NOT vote for Obama again, simply because of some historical pattern ---one of which they are not even aware?
Americans may vote (and vote against) for many reasons. I can not bring myself to believe that history has anything to do with any of them. But then I shall watch trends, and do some analysis, and meet you back here in about 200 years. Mark you calendars, please.
Be sure to visit Wilde and Twain often.
Comments