Coronavirus, the 2020 election and Donald Trump's reelection prospects
Another quick news-'0-the-week post, just to break pattern.
Will the coronavirus affect the 2020 election? Chris Achen & Larry Bartels actually have a relevant research paper here, called "Blind Retrospection." They eventually incorporated it into a pretty good book. I've been assigning the paper for years. Here's the basic point: voters actually blame incumbents, and punish them, for natural disasters beyond their control. They actually, seriously found an effect for the Matawan, NJ shark attacks that were the loose inspiration for Jaws. Not. Kidding. For real. Yeah, voters will do that.
Democracy! YEAH!
So, fun story. They also included analysis of the 1918 influenza outbreak. That case? No effect. No electoral punishment. Why? Achen & Bartels argued that the key was whether or not a plausible story could be told about politicians having a responsibility. Sure, there are natural disasters, but if it is pure natural disaster, completely outside of political control, then there's no reason to punish incumbents. But, if voters expect politicians to be able to respond, then they can construct a story of blame for lack of effective response. So, it isn't a completely mindless process of blaming incumbents whenever something bad happens.
OK, so 1918. No government had any capacity to respond to an influenza outbreak in 1918. From a biology perspective, this was before the discovery of DNA, OK? In WWI, they were hacking off peoples' limbs in trenches. That was medicine. The healthcare system was closer to leaches than to vaccines.
Today? People have expectations of government. If there is a pandemic that kills on a truly mass scale, while disrupting everything, people really may blame government in a way that they didn't 100 years ago because unlike 100 years ago, people expect the government to be able to manage things like this. That creates a plausible story.
So, in 1918, there wasn't an effect. If we just go by the influenza element, we'd say no electoral effect this time either. Then again, the changes to peoples' expectations of government create the possibility of a bigger effect, turning this into a Jaws... OK, Matawan, NJ shark attack situation.
Particularly given that competence isn't exactly Trump's thing. Bluster... he can do. Effective management... not so much. Presidents matter in times of crisis, and Trump hasn't faced a crisis, yet. This could be it, and bluster and bullying won't do anything to coronavirus. What's he gonna do? Give it a nickname? You can't hurt coronavirus's feelings and berate it into submission, like it's Lindsey Graham, or something.
If this does turn into a pandemic, Trump really may take the blame.
And it could tank the economy in Q2 of 2020, which would affect electoral models, including my favorite-- the Abramowitz model.
The flip side is, what would an authoritarian do in response to the possibility of losing here? I'm just going to let that question dangle, for now.
Will the coronavirus affect the 2020 election? Chris Achen & Larry Bartels actually have a relevant research paper here, called "Blind Retrospection." They eventually incorporated it into a pretty good book. I've been assigning the paper for years. Here's the basic point: voters actually blame incumbents, and punish them, for natural disasters beyond their control. They actually, seriously found an effect for the Matawan, NJ shark attacks that were the loose inspiration for Jaws. Not. Kidding. For real. Yeah, voters will do that.
Democracy! YEAH!
So, fun story. They also included analysis of the 1918 influenza outbreak. That case? No effect. No electoral punishment. Why? Achen & Bartels argued that the key was whether or not a plausible story could be told about politicians having a responsibility. Sure, there are natural disasters, but if it is pure natural disaster, completely outside of political control, then there's no reason to punish incumbents. But, if voters expect politicians to be able to respond, then they can construct a story of blame for lack of effective response. So, it isn't a completely mindless process of blaming incumbents whenever something bad happens.
OK, so 1918. No government had any capacity to respond to an influenza outbreak in 1918. From a biology perspective, this was before the discovery of DNA, OK? In WWI, they were hacking off peoples' limbs in trenches. That was medicine. The healthcare system was closer to leaches than to vaccines.
Today? People have expectations of government. If there is a pandemic that kills on a truly mass scale, while disrupting everything, people really may blame government in a way that they didn't 100 years ago because unlike 100 years ago, people expect the government to be able to manage things like this. That creates a plausible story.
So, in 1918, there wasn't an effect. If we just go by the influenza element, we'd say no electoral effect this time either. Then again, the changes to peoples' expectations of government create the possibility of a bigger effect, turning this into a Jaws... OK, Matawan, NJ shark attack situation.
Particularly given that competence isn't exactly Trump's thing. Bluster... he can do. Effective management... not so much. Presidents matter in times of crisis, and Trump hasn't faced a crisis, yet. This could be it, and bluster and bullying won't do anything to coronavirus. What's he gonna do? Give it a nickname? You can't hurt coronavirus's feelings and berate it into submission, like it's Lindsey Graham, or something.
If this does turn into a pandemic, Trump really may take the blame.
And it could tank the economy in Q2 of 2020, which would affect electoral models, including my favorite-- the Abramowitz model.
The flip side is, what would an authoritarian do in response to the possibility of losing here? I'm just going to let that question dangle, for now.
Comments
Post a Comment