Over the last dozen years, I have often confessed to being a fundamentalist.
This is not a statement of religious conviction, but rather an expression of my belief about what’s most important in presidential elections.
While the daily flood of commentary focuses our attention on gaffes and gifs, ads and endorsements, moods and modes, I have argued that political and economic fundamentals do more to shape the outcome of presidential elections than these other factors.
Of course, to say the fundamentals are the most important determinants of presidential election outcomes is not to say they are the only important factor. But, by themselves, the economy, partisanship and the length of time one party or the other has occupied the White House have done a pretty remarkable job of forecasting the results of presidential contests.
There are a variety of ways to measure and analyze such fundamentals, so a cottage industry has arisen among political scientists and economists who developed a variety of statistical models aimed at forecasting presidential elections.
Overall, these models have a pretty good track record, especially when one considers the fact that they consider only the fundamentals. On average, they usually come within 3 points of the actual results.
So it is of some interest that most of these models are forecasting a very close race, with most giving the GOP a slight edge.
One of the most famous, though not the most accurate, of these models was first developed by Yale economist Ray Fair decades ago. Based only on economic variables, Fair forecasts a 10-point victory for the Republican presidential candidate.
Of course, only an economist could believe that only the economy matters. When political fundamentals are included, as in Emory University Professor Alan Abramowitz’s model, the GOP candidate emerges with a 2-point margin in the forecast.
In addition to the economy, Abramowitz draws attention to the power of change in American politics. Only once since World War II has a party won more than two consecutive terms: George H.W. Bush, after two terms of Ronald Reagan. Putting Hillary Clinton in the White House would obviously constitute a third Democratic term.
Though most of the models result in a GOP advantage, not all do. One that uses state-by-state forecasts yields a Democratic margin by six-tenths of a point, while Oxford Economics’ model gives the Democrats a margin by five-hundredths of a point.
Of course, the current polls suggest a significantly different reality.
HuffPollsters’ average gives Clinton a 6-point lead over Republican Donald Trump, while RealClearPolitics’ average, computed differently, puts Clinton’s margin at 5 points.
PollyVote, which brings together a wide variety of forecasting tools, also projects a 5-point victory for Clinton.
Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight site combines polls with economic and historical data to conclude that Clinton has a 77 percent chance of winning.
The discrepancy between the fundamentals and every other forecasting approach could hardly be larger. Rather than use this divergence to castigate one set of forecasters or other, we can learn from it.
On the fundamentals, this should be at best a very close race, with at least a slight Republican lean. But candidates can make a difference, and surely are in this instance.
Trump’s concerted efforts to alienate large swaths of America have consequences. His repeated dishonesty matters. The fact that most voters believe his character and temperament disqualify him from the highest office in the land is significant.
He is the most unpopular major party candidate for president in the history of polling, by far.
Models tell us what happens on the average, in the main. But Donald Trump has ensured that this is not an “average” election. He has turned what could have been an opportunity for Republicans into not just an uphill but an up-mountain climb.
Trump’s fundamental flaws, and the danger they present to the country, are strong enough to overcome the fundamentals.
Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has worked for Democratic candidates and causes since 1982. Current clients include the minority leader of the Senate and the Democratic whip in the House.