US Midterm Elections - Predictions and Post-mortems

[Evo]

Like I said, people with an agenda will go to greater lengths to organize and get people to the polls.

Now we will have to wait and see if the change turns out really bad. I'm sure a lot of rational people were elected, most of the over the top crazies didn't win.

 

[WhoWee]

Um - my experience is that the market does not want to make a product that every American can afford. Some insurers from experience want to collect premiums but don't want to pay claims - family experience. And talking to doctors, the insurance company doesn't want to reimburse doctors, or pay for brand prescription drugs (sometimes generics just don't work).

And how about the quality of medical care which can be uneven.

I think the government has a role (in theory). However, it seems there are those who become involved in government in order to make sure it doesn't work for the people (consituents).

Why should the market operate any differently than the government. Isn't it the same people? We wouldn't need government regulation if the market observed ethical and moral standards. Similarly, government doesn't work if those involved do not observe ethical and moral standards.

We don't have a free market system when it comes to insurance.

Real reform would standardize regulations (1 set) and allow for a highly competitive marketplace - rather than 3 to 5 national companies with an exclusive. If done properly, consumers could have more than 200 companies competing for their business with a wide variety of products.

 

[talk2glenn]

The Democratic Party leaders in Ohio explained the losses today (on the radio) - low turnout is to blame - nothing else.

This news outlet should be happy to hear they were right...
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/political/elections_local/cuyahoga-county-board-of-elections-director-disappointed-with-low-voter-turnout

The notion that voter turnout explains the results is a fiction.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/william-gal...gn=f7bdd257b4-Edit_and_Blogs&utm_medium=email

The important bits:

In 2006, 38% of voters were Democrats. In 2010, the figure was 36%. Amazingly, Democratic voter turn out outperformed, given the scope of the shift in ideology, which is typical for off year elections (the most motivated voters - left and right - make up a disproportionate share of the electorate).

This bodes poorly for the Democrats in 2010, assuming no change in ideological trends. In 2006, 32% of voters said they were conservative, compared with 41% in 2010 - depsite no change in the proportion of voting Republicans.

Some insurers from experience want to collect premiums but don't want to pay claims - family experience.

Anecdotal evidence form a disgruntled relative whose insurer refused to pay a claim that was, in almost certain probability, invalid proves nothing. The rate of claims denial varies widely amongst private insurers, between 2.7% (UHC) and 6.8% (Aetna). Medicare has the highest decline rate, at 6.85%. Not surprisingly, many claims are denied due to technical errors (filing the wrong forms, not filling the forms out properly, etc). The more bureacratic, public health systems would logically be expected to have higher rates of technical rejections.

These were 2008 rates, and there may be newer data available. I can say with absolute confidence, however, that Medicare will continue to exceed average private sector rejection rates, even without seeing the data. Why is this? Certainly not the profit motive - even if we take it as a given that private insurers are generally more efficient claims processors than their public sector counterparts (a function of the profit motive - bureaucracies inflate their budgets by expanding payrolls regardless of efficiency, while competitive companies can be said to start with fixed potential revenues and work to minimize costs, the difference being profit), insurance companies make more money when they deny more claims. Market competition is a more likely factor. Medicare has a coverage monopoly, and doctors are more likely to accept it to gain access to its large insured population. On the other hand, insurance companies must compete both for covered consumers and participating providers. High claims denial rates make physicians less willing to accept the insurance, which drives individuals to seek coverage elsewhere.

Why should the market operate any differently than the government.

Individual participants in a competitive market are price takers - this means their marginal revenue for a given product is simply equal to the market price for it. They cannot, at the abstract, force that price higher or lower by increasing or decreasing the firms supply, because other suppliers (either existing or newly entering) will meet the difference.

The profit maximization problem, then, is purely a function of marginal cost. At the optimal, marginal costs equal marginal revenues (the last dollar spent on production generates one dollar in revenue). A competitive firm cannot affect marginal revenue, so its place on the industry supply curve is purely a function of its cost competitiveness. This determines how much it supplies, and how much revenue (and in turn profit) it generates.

Because a firm in a competitive market can only maximize profit by minimizing costs, it has an incentive to be more efficient - it has no other means of raising revenues or generating profits. A firm in a monopolized market is a price determinant; it can raise revenues by charging higher prices instead of reducing costs. This reduces the monopolists incentive to increase efficiency (defined as output/dollar). In the case of goods whose price elasticity of demand is relatively low, like healthcare, the monopolists power is increased. A consumer is unlikely to respond to rising prices or declining quality by consuming less.

This is a simple explanation for the abstract concept, "competitive firms are more efficient than monopolistic firms". Since government tends to be a monopoloizing market participant, we can expand this to say, "the market is more efficient than the government".

 

[BobG]

The notion that voter turnout explains the results is a fiction.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/william-gal...gn=f7bdd257b4-Edit_and_Blogs&utm_medium=email

The important bits:

In 2006, 38% of voters were Democrats. In 2010, the figure was 36%. Amazingly, Democratic voter turn out outperformed, given the scope of the shift in ideology, which is typical for off year elections (the most motivated voters - left and right - make up a disproportionate share of the electorate).

This bodes poorly for the Democrats in 2010, assuming no change in ideological trends. In 2006, 32% of voters said they were conservative, compared with 41% in 2010 - depsite no change in the proportion of voting Republicans.

Two data points don't give enough information. Ideology is more constant than party affiliation. From the CCN exit polls (same source as your link, considering the numbers they used):

Year   Dem   Rep   Ind      Con   Mod   Lib
2010   36%   36%  28%    41%   39%   20%
2008   39%   32%  29%    34%   44%   22%
2006   38%   36%  26%    32%   47%   20%
2004   37%   37%  26%    34%   45%   21%

Four data points don't give enough information, either, but CNN's exit polls only go back so far. The idea that a person's ideology (Conservative, Moderate, Liberal) changes slower than his attitude about his political party is just an assumption. It could be wrong, since some people have more loyalty to their political party than their ideology (it's fun to be part of the team).

Still, a huge change in ideology does indicate an abnormal election where conservatives were much more motivated than moderates, and even liberals to a slight extent.

Another research poll on who was likely to vote and who wasn't:

The Party of Nonvoters
Midterm elections usualy tilt towards the most unsatisfied groups, hence the party of the President usually losing seats in midterm elections. Strangely, those affected the most by a bad economy were less likely to vote in this election.

 

[WhoWee]

Two data points don't give enough information. Ideology is more constant than party affiliation. From the CCN exit polls (same source as your link, considering the numbers they used):

Year   Dem   Rep   Ind      Con   Mod   Lib
2010   36%   36%  28%    41%   39%   20%
2008   39%   32%  29%    34%   44%   22%
2006   38%   36%  26%    32%   47%   20%
2004   37%   37%  26%    34%   45%   21%

Four data points don't give enough information, either, but CNN's exit polls only go back so far. The idea that a person's ideology (Conservative, Moderate, Liberal) changes slower than his attitude about his political party is just an assumption. It could be wrong, since some people have more loyalty to their political party than their ideology (it's fun to be part of the team).

Still, a huge change in ideology does indicate an abnormal election where conservatives were much more motivated than moderates, and even liberals to a slight extent.

On the other hand, the CNN numbers demonstrate why Obama won in 2008 - increased Dems coupled with decreased Repubs.

 

[BobG]

On the other hand, the CNN numbers demonstrate why Obama won in 2008 - increased Dems coupled with decreased Repubs.

Slightly. Independents increased more than Dems. Decreased Republicans with no change in ideology suggests frustration with the party. And the Republican Party is less stable than it used to be, with Tea Partiers being one indication of that.

There's a lot more moderate Democrats than there are moderate Republicans, meaning the policies of both parties are shifted to the right (the country is more conservative than it used to be). That should make Democratic percentages in elections more volatile than Republican percentages. The country may be slowly drifting to the right, but I find it hard to believe ideologies shifted 7% or 5% in just 2 years. What happens in an election where ideology is closer to normal voting patterns?

 

[WhoWee]

Slightly. Independents increased more than Dems. Decreased Republicans with no change in ideology suggests frustration with the party. And the Republican Party is less stable than it used to be, with Tea Partiers being one indication of that.

There's a lot more moderate Democrats than there are moderate Republicans, meaning the policies of both parties are shifted to the right (the country is more conservative than it used to be). That should make Democratic percentages in elections more volatile than Republican percentages. The country may be slowly drifting to the right, but I find it hard to believe ideologies shifted 7% or 5% in just 2 years. What happens in an election where ideology is closer to normal voting patterns?

I'd like to see a similar poll of the 2008 Primary (H Clinton vs B Obama).

 

[WhoWee]

This explains EVERYTHING - it turns out Obama didn't make enough speeches/or perhaps didn't sell the "big picture"? Either way, he's going to change his style as soon as he gets back from his trip to build international trade.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101105/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_election_retrospective

"Obama says in an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes" that he "stopped paying attention" to the leadership style he displayed during his run for the presidency.

Obama also said he recognizes now that "leadership is not just legislation," and that "it's a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone. And making an argument that people can understand.""

 

[BobG]

Here's a poll tracking ideology that's independent of elections. In other words, it won't necessarily reflect voting trends: Conservatives Finish 2009 as No. 1 Ideological Group

A 3% shift in ideology is unusual, but not unheard of. When a shift that big occurs, it usually corrects itself in the opposite direction, but not always. So I'm not quite sure what to make in such a huge leap in conservative voters in the 2010 election. Part of it is probably real, but it's certainly not a real 7% shift in ideology towards conservatism.

Interestingly, the report makes a rather glaring error when comparing ideology to party. If you look closer, they erroneously just pasted the numbers from party ideology as a reflection of which party conservatives, moderates, liberals belong to, etc.

The error can be corrected using the overall ideological distribution and the ideology distribution within each party using simultaneous equations to yield: 35% Democrats, 28% Republicans, and 36% Independents.

Which means the real percentages are:

Ideology   Democrat   Republican   Independent
Cons        18%          50%           32%
Mod         38%          19%           43%
Lib         63%           5%           31%

(Fixing the errors in the report is more interesting than the report, itself.)

 

[Al68]

So I'm not quite sure what to make in such a huge leap in conservative voters in the 2010 election. Part of it is probably real, but it's certainly not a real 7% shift in ideology towards conservatism.

I agree with that. Peoples' ideology didn't change significantly. What changed is what many perceived the ideology of each party to be.

The attempt of Democrats to hide, obfuscate, and mislead the public about their (and their opponents') ideology seems to me to be about 7% less effective this year.

 

[Gokul43201]

The attempt of Democrats to hide, obfuscate, and mislead the public about their (and their opponents') ideology seems to me to be about 7% less effective this year.

Or the attempt of Republicans to hide, obfuscate, and mislead the public about their (and their opponents') ideology seems to me to be about 7% more effective.

Or some combination of both.

If you think one of the two parties is made up entirely of honest, clean public servants ... well, I'm pretty sure you don't.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This election was about jobs and nothing else - not spending, agendas, or policies. People are frightened, they are unusually vulnerable to Republican propaganda, and they lashed out. Were unemployment at 5%, all of the other alleged issues would have been moot.

I hope the Republicans continue to delude themselves. It bodes well for 2012. Note that when Mitch McConnell spoke, he focused on everything but jobs.

Btw, the private sector added 159,000 jobs last month.

 

[BobG]

I agree with that. Peoples' ideology didn't change significantly. What changed is what many perceived the ideology of each party to be.

The attempt of Democrats to hide, obfuscate, and mislead the public about their (and their opponents') ideology seems to me to be about 7% less effective this year.

If your second paragraph were true, party affiliation would remain steady while people's reported ideology would change. In reality, party affiliation varies all the time.

Year      Dem   Rep     Ind
2000      33%	31%	36%
2001      38%	32%	31%
2002      39%	32%	28%
2003      23%	26%	52%
2004      21%	27%	52%
2005      31%	33%	36%
2006      33%	29%	36%
2007      34%	27%	39%
2008      34%	26%	38%
2009      35%	28%	36%

I would tend to agree with Ivan's point, since it would seem to be common sense - except those hardest hit by the economy and unemployment were the least likely to vote.

In any event, if the economy improves it's because a)Republicans control the House or b) because a Democrat is in the White House or c) because the economy always goes up and down and it's time for it to go up.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

except those hardest hit by the economy and unemployment were the least likely to vote.

Exactly, and who put Obama in office?

Why did Reid win? He got out the Latino vote. Who swung heavily for the right - blue-collar workers.

It is all about fear. Interpreting this election is a no-brainer. The economy didn't turn around quickly enough, and you can't sell "what it would have been like had we done nothing", in a political campaign.

Russ made the comment some time ago that Obama will be reelected because, by then, the jobs market will be recovering. True, but only true BECAUSE of the actions of Obama and the Dems. But you'll never sell that one to a person who is looking for a job.

 

[mheslep]

Btw, the private sector added 159,000 jobs last month.

While the number of unemployed and the unemployment rate remained the same, 14.8 million and 9.6%.

 

[mheslep]

[...] or c) because the economy always goes up and down and it's time for it to go up.

Well http://www.nber.org/feldstein/bg120401.html" time for it to go up; I expect people know that and make voting judgements accordingly.

Most recessions don't last very long. The nine recessions since WWII ranged from 6 to 16 months with an average of 11 months.

 

[IMP]

This explains EVERYTHING - it turns out Obama didn't make enough speeches/or perhaps didn't sell the "big picture"? Either way, he's going to change his style as soon as he gets back from his trip to build international trade.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101105/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_election_retrospective

The huge wave of Republican support was precisely because his message did get through.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well http://www.nber.org/feldstein/bg120401.html" time for it to go up; I expect people know that and make voting judgements accordingly.

So what higher power decides when it is time (or well past time) and when it isn't?

And when does an economic recovery ever come too soon?

 

[mheslep]

So what higher power decides when it is time (or well past time) and when it isn't?

And when does an economic recovery ever come too soon?

The point is that if one accepts the economy is to a large extent a deterministic system then some levers will tend to encourage faster and sharper recoveries, others the opposite. Clearly this time around the federal government has tried some unprecedented policies.

 

[BobG]

So what higher power decides when it is time (or well past time) and when it isn't?

Gauss?

 

[CAC1001]

This election was about jobs and nothing else - not spending, agendas, or policies. People are frightened, they are unusually vulnerable to Republican propaganda, and they lashed out. Were unemployment at 5%, all of the other alleged issues would have been moot.

I'd say it was a combination of the economy and a rejection of the Obama agenda. The people were supposed to be frightened/irrational/angry when the Republicans took control in 1994 too, but the unemployment rate was significantly lower then.

The party in power tends to take a hit during elections when the economy isn't doing well, but the Democrats really got their butts handed to them this time around. That isn't solely due to the economy. Also, note that the Democrats didn't run on things like healthcare.

If your argument was true, then one could easily say it was fear that got Obama elected in the first place. In late 2008, the economy seemed on the verge of collapse, people were fearful, and voted in Obama (by that type of reasoning).

Exactly, and who put Obama in office?

Why did Reid win? He got out the Latino vote. Who swung heavily for the right - blue-collar workers.

Sharron Angle also helped in this sense I think with her anti-illegal immigrant ads, which I think caused the Latinos to swing more heavily for Reid.

Russ made the comment some time ago that Obama will be reelected because, by then, the jobs market will be recovering. True, but only true BECAUSE of the actions of Obama and the Dems. But you'll never sell that one to a person who is looking for a job.

What actions of Obama and the Dems are you referring to that will theoretically cause the economy to turn around by 2012? I would say it will turn around (hopefully) in spite of their actions.

Since taking office, the Democrats embarked on a massive so-called stimulus program from which we have pretty much seen nothing. One of the main selling points for the stimulus was that America has a very aging infrastructure, so now would be a good time to embark on doing a lot of infrastructure projects. But where are they?

While many can criticize for example Japan's attempts at stimulus for not stimulating their economy, nonetheless, Japan did get a lot of infrastructure out of it, some might even say too much, in the form of roads and bridges to nowhere.

If the economy was still bad but we were seeing some real investments made in improving America's infrastructure in all sorts of ways, one could at least reason, "Well it doesn't seem to be stimulating very much, but at least we are getting lots of nice new infrastructure out of it."

But we haven't seen that. The Democrats say that the stimulus saved us from a repeat of the Great Depression, but I find this questionable because of Obama's own statement, when he said that he didn't realize at the time that there is no such thing as a shovel-ready project. If that is the case, then how did the stimulus save the economy? The money wasn't able to flood it quickly as was needed.

Then Obama spent over a year pushing for healthcare reform, which created a lot of uncertainty in the economy. One problem isn't that corporations lack cash, it's that they are sitting on it and not investing. No one knew if things like carbon cap-and-trade, or union card check were going to pass either, creating more uncertainty. Also the Bush tax cuts being set to increase.

Now that the House has gone to the Republicans, much of the uncertainty is over, and hopefully we will see corporations start investing putting their money into the economy, and hopefully the unemployment rate will start declining.

I would say the Democrats did a lot of things to hamper an economic recovery simply by the agenda Obama wanted passed (healthcare, cap-and-trade, union card check, financial system reform, Bush tax cuts expire), and the one thing they did to specifically help the economy recover, the stimulus, was executed in a very poor manner.

 

[CAC1001]

So what higher power decides when it is time (or well past time) and when it isn't?

And when does an economic recovery ever come too soon?

The way I read it was mheslep was saying that historically, in terms of the lengths of recessions, this recession is past due for the time it was expected to recover.

Although, technically, isn't the recession over now, it's just the economy has high unemployment?

Unemployment and growth can be inversed, for example Japan's economy has very little growth, but full employment, the American economy right now is experiencing growth, but high unemployment.

 

[mheslep]

Although, technically, isn't the recession over now, it's just the economy has high unemployment?

Yes it is technically over, with an anemic recovery compared to past recessions.

 

[Al68]

I agree with that. Peoples' ideology didn't change significantly. What changed is what many perceived the ideology of each party to be.

The attempt of Democrats to hide, obfuscate, and mislead the public about their (and their opponents') ideology seems to me to be about 7% less effective this year.

If your second paragraph were true, party affiliation would remain steady while people's reported ideology would change.

Huh? I think you misunderstood my post. The opposite would be true. People would switch parties while not switching their own ideology. People pick the party that matches their ideology, they don't generally change their own ideology to match their previously chosen party.

 

[Al68]

Or the attempt of Republicans to hide, obfuscate, and mislead the public about their (and their opponents') ideology seems to me to be about 7% more effective.

Or some combination of both.

If you think one of the two parties is made up entirely of honest, clean public servants ... well, I'm pretty sure you don't.

LOL, you're right, I don't believe that. Of course both parties try such nonsense, but the Democratic Party is far more prolific and successful historically.

How many Dem voters believe that the two economic "ideologies" consist of:

a) Those "on the side" of poor and middle class.
b) Those "on the side" of the rich.

Obviously, those two "sides" differ in motives, not ideology, while implicitly assuming a common ideology.

But how successful has the Democratic Party been historically of convincing people that there is no significant disagreement about ideology or political philosophy, only a difference in motives instead?

What percentage of Democratic voters base their decision on that classic ad hominem logical fallacy?

My estimate is that it represents the overwhelming majority of their constituency.

Of course some Republicans have tried to convince people that Democrats favor certain policies because they "want to destroy small businesses", etc, but such attempts aren't near as prolific, aren't the core of their message, and they are certainly not near as historically successful as Democrats are at such propaganda.

 

[Gokul43201]

That's two falsehoods in a sea of hundreds. Hardly a representative sample.

(nor is this ...)

How many conservatives believe Obama ... is a Muslim, ... is the antichrist, ... is a Nazi style eugenist, ... has recreated a version of the Hitler youth, ... wants to implement Sharia Law in the US, ... plans to resettle hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the US, ... is already snaking foreign Muslims into the US, ... plans to reinstate the fairness doctrine, ... is diverting 10% of the US Navy for a personal trip, ... plans to take away our guns, ... is anti-America, ... wants government to take over private industry, ... wants to end all drilling in the Gulf, ... ? (and that's only the crazy stuff)

You don't think falsehoods spread by Republicans have had a significant role in this election?

 

[Al68]

That's two falsehood in a sea of hundreds. Hardly a representative sample.

(nor is this ...)

How many conservatives believe Obama ... is a Muslim, ... is the antichrist, ... is a Nazi style eugenist, ... has recreated a version of the Hitler youth, ... wants to implement Sharia Law in the US, ... plans to resettle hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the US, ... is already snaking foreign Muslims into the US, ... plans to reinstate the fairness doctrine, ... is diverting 10% of the US Navy for a personal trip, ... plans to take away our guns, ... is anti-America, ... wants government to take over private industry, ... wants to end all drilling in the Gulf, ... ? (and that's only the crazy stuff)

You don't think falsehoods spread by Republicans have had a significant role in this election?

Significant, maybe. But the effect of all of your examples combined represent a small fraction of the people who voted for Dems because of the single example I gave. It may be a "single falsehood in a sea of hundreds" (or more), but it's a phenomenally successful one.

Like I said, they both do it, Dems are just far more successful.

But at least one of your examples isn't crazy: "wants to take over private industry" is factually true to a large degree in the industry most referred to, health insurance. You shouldn't lump that one in with the crazy stuff.

 

[Gokul43201]

To clarify, I meant "all industry".

Small fraction you think. I don't think so. Jones, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc have millions (tens of millions?) of dedicated listeners. I don't think they're in it for the reasonable talk.

(and I was only trying to list some of the extreme craziness)

 

[Al68]

Small fraction you think. I don't think so.

Well, I'm too lazy to look for them now, but I seem to recall some polls regarding many of the things you listed, and while perhaps too many people believed them, it was a relatively small percentage, if I recall correctly. Maybe I'll do a quick search online.

 

[Gokul43201]

Don't bother (unless you want to). I don't think I'd like to then follow that up with a set of less crazy claims to see if we can estimate corresponding numbers. (Started looking for numbers myself - and found one, from an iffy source - but realized it would take forever to hunt down numbers on more of those things, and that numbers don't likely exist for most)

 

[CAC1001]

... plans to reinstate the fairness doctrine,

He did support it originally if I remember right, but made no push for it as President.

... plans to take away our guns,

Well he doesn't have a record of being exactly pro-2nd Amendment though. But again, this isn't something he has pushed for as President.

 

[Gokul43201]

He did support it originally if I remember right, but made no push for it as President.

Nope. Not before [1]. Not after [2]. But it's not surprising that you believe he supported it.

1. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ar...s_Not_Support_Return_of_Fairness_Doctrine.php

There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.

The Illinois senator’s top aide said the issue continues to be used as a distraction from more pressing media business.

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

2. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/white-house-obama-opposes-fairness-doctrine-revival/

President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.

 

[Al68]

Don't bother (unless you want to). I don't think I'd like to then follow that up with a set of less crazy claims to see if we can estimate corresponding numbers. (Started looking for numbers myself - and found one, from an iffy source - but realized it would take forever to hunt down numbers on more of those things, and that numbers don't likely exist for most)

I think you're right, it would be too difficult. I couldn't even quickly find any data about what percentage of Democratic voters believe the example I gave, so we would have nothing to compare it to, anyway.

 

[Al68]

Nope. Not before [1]. Not after [2]. But it's not surprising that you believe he supported it.

Yeah, I think that should be moved from the "crazy belief" column to the "just incorrect" column, given that many Democrats do support it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Okay, moved.