Nate Silver argues that Herman Cain occupies a special place in the history of politics:
There is simply no precedent for a candidate like Mr. Cain, one with such strong polling but such weak fundamentals. We do have some basic sense that both categories are important. This evidence is probably persuasive enough to say that Mr. Cain’s chances are much less than implied by his polling alone. They may, in fact, be fairly slim.
But slim (say, positing Mr. Cain’s odds at 50-to-1 against) is much different than none (infinity-to-1 against). We don’t know enough about the way these factors interact, and we can’t be sure enough that the way they’ve interacted in the past will continue on into the future, to say that Mr. Cain has no chance or effectively no chance.
Frankly, I think it is quite arrogant to say that the man leading in the polls two months before Iowa has no chance, especially given that there is a long history in politics and other fields of experts being overconfident when they make predictions.
Silver connects the media’s willingness to say that Cain has no chance with the general lack of accountability in media circles. It’s easy to say that some unlikely candidate will “never win” and then ignore that candidate if that prediction won’t affect your standing as a beltway luminary.
That said, Herman’s campaign management skills clearly need some work.
Nevgu
mistermix continues his dillusional obsession with Cain now that Palin said she is not running. mistermix was almost sure Palin was running right to the end.
My guess is that mistermix also stalks media personalities in his spare time. Something just not right with the logic center of his pea brain.
Chyron HR
@Nevgu:
Insightful commentary as always.
Samara Morgan
wallah.
very disappointing for Nate.
umm….Palin Precedent, anyone?
JPL
@Samara Morgan: McCain anointed Palin. She just happens to be that gift that keeps on giving.
Guster
@Samara Morgan: You mean back when Palin ran in the Republican primary?
And I go with infinity-to-one.
Samara Morgan
@JPL:
Palin was a candidate….a candidate for VP.
Im very disappointed in Nates post.
The republican base loathes Romney.
Cain is just the last anti-Romney standing.
Nate is unrealistic in that he puts Cains chances at 50:1.
If all the not-Romneys group up, Cain will win the nom.
the math is simple.
and….if Romney loses his gloss of electability for whatever reason….the base will drop him like a hot rock.
arguingwithsignposts
Since we’ve only had 18 presidential elections since the era of modern polling began in the 1930s, and only about one since the widespread acceptance of social media, this is less of a shocker than Silver makes it out to be.
p.a.
Many many moons ago I was riding with a friend around the circle in Providence, getting stoned. The Allman Bros. Band was coming to the Prov. Civic Center, and he asked if I were going. “Nah. It’s (partly-ed.) a benefit concert for some guy running for president who’s got no chance. i don’t wanna waste my money.”
Yup. Jimmy Carter (our best ex-president), and really not that bad a president, except for ‘The Carter Doctrine’.
Samara Morgan
@Guster: im just going with precedent of popular but radically unqualified candidates, not republican nominees.
Palin is a great example.
Samara Morgan
what does this mean for the tea party?
lol
Cain is the Howard Dean of this campaign. He’s exicting the base nationally with his message and may even have the money to push it. Unfortunately, he has as little clue how to organize a campaign and put that enthusiasm to work in the early states that will actually matter.
Mitt Romney is the unexciting John Kerry style candidate. Ignoring the media cycle and focusing on winning where it counts when it counts.
Rick Perry is maybe the John Edwards. Exciting to the base in a lot of ways and will benefit from the other candidates flaming out, but it won’t be enough to stop the Romney/Kerry juggernaut.
Bachmann will play the role of Dick Gephardt – longshot house rep with high expectations to perform in Iowa. She’ll also be the one to do the most damage to Cain as she executes a Dean/Gephardt style murder-suicide pact in negative ads.
Mark B.
Cain is running a postmodern content-free, message-free, organization-free campaign. He’s selling the image of a grinning non-threatening black man to people desperate for anything to rescue them from their bugaboo, the overeducated policy wonk half-black in the White House, who uses big words and makes them feel stupid.
Mark B.
@p.a.: Well, Jimmy Carter had some bona fides before he ran for president. Governor of a decent sized state and a distinguished military record. Cain … not so much. He sold a lot of cheap crappy pizza and increased the profit margins of his company by treating his employees like crap. I can’t see how that translates into being qualified for office.
arguingwithsignposts
@Mark B.: trivia time: was Carter the last sane governor of Georgia?
Mark B.
@arguingwithsignposts: I’m not familiar enough with Georgia politics to answer your question. But, I did shake hands with Jimmy Carter once, at the Texas Capitol when he was running in 1976. He’s quite short in stature, but a bigger man than just about anyone in politics currently … speaking metaphorically. Carter gets a bad rap in a lot of popular history, but I don’t think that’s fair. He was a good man, and IMO, an excellent president, who had bad luck with the economic cycle and ran into a new phenomena with the empty headed propaganda campaign run by Reagan’s handlers.
JPL
@arguingwithsignposts: I did not live in GA during the Carter years. I arrived when Zell was Governor. Barnes was pretty good. He actually tried to rein in predatory lending but was overruled. He was also governor during a time when people wanted to improve education. After he lost his second term to Sonny, it’s been downhill since then.
handsmile
Other than that his daily acts of buffoonery compel news coverage, Herman Cain remains newsworthy because of his national polling numbers, a phenomenon that many have plausibly attributed to anti-Romney and disaffected-Perry sentiments among GOP primary voters.
That factor itself may now be in jeopardy. Via TPM, on Wednesday CNN released polling results from the first primary and caucus states: IA, NH, SC, and FL. The Mormon former governor of Massachusetts leads in every one of them. Romney’s margins in NH and FL are in double digits, although in both IA and SC they are within the margin of error. CNN’s polling analysis indicates, not surprisingly, that state Tea Partiers will be the key to whatever success Cain may enjoy once votes are cast. In all four states, those GOP primary voters who hold favorable opinions of the TP now prefer the grifter Cain.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/cold-pizza-cain-falls-back-in-four-early-primary-states-romney-ahead.php?ref=fpb
At the conclusion of the Nate Silver/538 article that mistemix links to, he poses a challenge to political writers who are certain that Cain has zero chance of being the 2012 GOP nominee. Raising the issue of accountability, he asks whether any will cease writing about politics if they are wrong on this issue. Thus far, two have agreed.
I’ll take up that challenge. If Herman Cain is the 2012 GOP presidential nominee, I will never again write a comment on Balloon Juice. BFD, of course, though it may be pleasing to some (including my wife).
p.a.
@Mark B.: Of course. I’m not arguing bona fides, just electability, perceived or not. Has a former FedRes. member ever been president?
Paul in KY
@Samara Morgan: The ‘tea party’ is just a faction of Republicans. If they manage to pull the Republican candidates more to their version of crazy, then they have been effective (IMO).
Samara Morgan
@lol: but both sides are not the same.
the dem base was indifferent to Kerry, they didnt hate him.
@Paul in KY: but they are not a tame faction.
And they hate Romney.
Check out Rush.
Samara Morgan
@handsmile: all there has to be is a whisper of unelectability that brushes up against Romney.
right now the elite faction of the GOP is trying to force Romney on the base. the only reason any GOP baser has to vote Romney is the perception of electability.
SiubhanDuinne
@arguingwithsignposts:
I’ve always quite liked Roy Barnes. He was completely shafted by a whole lot of dirty tricks and all-out negative campaigning (by which I mean scurrilous LYING) on behalf of Sonny Perdue in 2002. I don’t think Roy was able to conceive of that level of foulness and as a result wasn’t able to regroup and fight back effectively. And he (RB) made some misjudgments in office. But he was certainly sane, and overall his heart and mind were in the right place. Also, hella nice guy.
Rome Again
There is no precedent because Cain is not actually running for President, he’s using a presidential campaign to sell a book!
Samara Morgan
Cain is part of a broader phenomenon that embraces Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell. Radically unqualified candidates with populist appeal to the GOP base.
So Nate is simply wrong here. This is not “unprecedented” . Calling it unprecedented is just part of the horse race/both sides are the same/pari-mutual handicapping media bulshytt that even the great Nate Silver indulges in.
flukebucket
@Mark B.:
Carter was the first vote for President that I cast. I voted for him over Reagan. He was and is a good man. Forward thinking.
I was reading the Charles Pierce blog yesterday (thanks again to all who recommended him. I am officially in love) and one of the commenters there said that job creation under the one term of Carter was greater than job creation under either of the 4 year Reagan stints.
I did not know that and have not looked it up to verify but I thought it was interesting.
Oh, and I also go with infinity to one when it comes to Cain.
Samara Morgan
Donald Trump would be another example.
Hardly “unprecedented”.
butler
The “fundamentals” referred to here aren’t whether someone is subjectively qualified for the job of President. They are things like endorsements, money raised, and campaign infrastructure. Usually all of those things correlated very well with primary polling. In this case they don’t, since Cain has high numbers but no real endorsements or money.
Palin doesn’t really apply for mulitple reasons. First, she never ran in an primary of her own, so its an apples and Cains comparison. Second, her hypothetical polling numbers aren’t that great, even among Republicans. In fact, had she run she possibly would have been a counter case to Caine: strong “fundamentals” (fundraising and endorsements) but relatively low polling numbers.
So Nate is simply wrong here. This is not “unprecedented”
The guy looked at all the available historical data and didn’t find any comparable scenarios. That’s the definition of unprecedented.
Hoodie
@SiubhanDuinne: Georgia actually had a relatively long run of sane Democratic governors after Carter, including Joe Frank Harris and George Busbee, both of whom were from the progressive wing of southern politics. Zell actually started out nominally sane, doing things like the Hope scholarship program. Something happened to him, he became a complete loon. It may have been because Zell was from North Georgia, which really didn’t have much action during the civil rights era. In contrast, Busbee came up through Carl Sanders’ organization, like Carter. Georgia and NC traditionally had a fairly (by southern standards) progressive element on the Democratic side.
butler
Except he didn’t actually join the race. And again, I think you’re misunderstanding what Silver is talking about here. Its not about the candidate’s qualfications, its about their campaign strength. Money, endorsements, etc etc, these are things that can be counted and measured, albeit crudely. Historically, if you do count them up you’ll get a very strong correlation between these types of fundamentals and polling results. Cain is an outlier, because he is polling well ahead of where you might predict based on his measured campaign strength.
Epicurus
I am willing to put up a microscopic amount of money (in the range of $.01 to $1) that Herman Cain will NEVER be the GOP nominee for anything. The Republican Party will NOT place a black man in the running for the highest office in the land; that’s not speculation, that’s a fact. This bozo is selling books, making lots of money and laughing at the bozos who think he is a viable candidate. As another commenter pointed out, it’s entirely possible that I am wrong, but I will retain my privilege of posting my opinions here. I love Nate Silver’s work, but I think he’s grasping at straws here.
DougJ
I loves me some Nate Silver but it’s picking nits to say the pundits are wrong to say Cain has no chance when Silver thinks Cain has a 1-in-50 chance. Colloquially, people say “no chance” on anything less than 1-in-10, IMHO.
Amir Khalid
By the conventional measure, Herman Cain is running his campaign all wrong: a ridiculous policy platform, a hollow organization, little fund-raising, no major endorsements, and no effort at retail campaigning. All this suggests he would make an inept president. Yet other candidates making a much more serious effort aren’t polling as well; I guess Nate Silver is surprised that Cain’s campaign hasn’t collapsed by now.
It might be Cain’s novelty value that’s keeping his poll numbers up. It sure isn’t his substantive merit as a candidate.
But there’s still time for people, even die-hard Teabaggers, to get wise to this Potemkin campaign. Especially if he keeps putting his foot in his mouth almost every day; sooner or later, he’ll say something too heinous even for them. Or they might notice the lack of Hermanator for Prez people knocking on doors and calling them on the phone. At some point in the next few months, his poll numbers will finally fail, I expect; or he will, at the primaries.
If neither happens, then I’d worry.
WeeBey
Sarah Palin had the endorsement of, you know, the GOP presidential nominee.
You’re really quite clueless. You’re talking about one thing. Nate’s talking about another. Stop trying to make the thing you’re talking about happen.
Brachiator
Predictions mean nothing. Even Nate Silver is smart enough to realize this in his commentary.
Again, people want pundits to be high priests of journalism, or soothsayers. And so, there is this shrill nonsense that Cain should obey the voice of punditry, if only the pundits would sooth clearly, and withdraw.
So, Cain may not have a chance of winning the nomination. So freaking what? It is up to GOP primary voters to dump Cain’s ass, and that of any other candidate. Candidate determination based on the oracular visions of pundits is as dumbshit as college football rankings, fantasy football, and Fox News.
Martin
Cain may indeed win the nom, but he’ll get destroyed in the general. Nate knows what he’s seeing and I’ve seen it too – the polling is disconnected the fundamentals because the polling is soft. Its swinging wildly with Bachmann, Perry, and Cain all taking up the lead for a week or two and then plummeting. The only firm bit of polling is that Romney is sorta liked but not really. If he wins the nom (which he likely will) it’ll be as lesser-of-two-evils candidate, and that’s a really shitty way to go into a general.
GOP voters just don’t connect to these candidates. When they do, we’ll know it.
The problem in the poll, for those who don’t do this sort of stuff, is that the survey participants are forced to make a choice. That’s useful next November, when they will be forced to make a choice, but the better question at this stage is “Who are you willing to knock on doors for.” or “Who are you willing to donate to” or something along those lines. Preference is less important than intensity. If 80% of the GOP is willing to knock doors for Romney, but only 20% prefer him, that’s vastly better information than 25% preferring Cain but only 20% being willing to knock doors for him. It’s that ‘intensity’ metric that causes caucuses to not correlate to primaries as you’d expect – intensity is a variable that shows up in a caucus, being a group activity, vs a primary being an individual activity.
The polling question is therefore only useful in single event measure. But caucuses are iterative events, so they’re harder to poll. And the whole primary/caucus process is iterative because states don’t hold their events all on the same day. An early win changes a campaigns intensity which influences later voting. Polling Huntsman is stupid because the guy is unlikely to even be a choice in the race for 80% of the people voting in primaries. They won’t be able to choose him, so their 2nd choice is what’s really useful, but we don’t know what that is (or their 3rd if the 2nd choice drops out).
So, this is all stupid. Ignore it. It’s nearly meaningless.
Console
Cain has zero skills as a politician. And I don’t mean the blowing smoke up people’s ass part. If he wins, he’d win with no money, no organization, no establishment backing, nothing… Yes, that shit would be unprecedented.
Catsy
@Amir Khalid:
It has little to do with Cain, and a whole lot more to do with how fundamentally weak and dissatisfying the rest of the candidates are.
Romney? The base HATES him. As bad as or worse than Grampy McCrankypants. And a good chunk of Cain’s rise has coincided with the hits Romney is taking from his habitual dishonesty and blatant pandering.
Perry? Looking more unelectable by the day. And again, Cain’s rise coincides with a whole lot of bleeding from Perry.
Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich? Crazytown, and even the base knows they have no chance against Obama. They might as well not be running.
It’s not that they like Cain. It’s that he’s not any of the above.
Brachiator
@Martin:
Simpler, polling is disconnected from the reality of primary and caucus voting.
Polling tells you something (more or less) about who people like. Actual voting establishes who the candidates will be.
Samara Morgan
@butler:
then he should have restricted “candidate” to republican nomimee.
You think Nate doesnt mainstream sketchy GOP candidates for the horse race?
He has a mortgage too.
hes part of the problem.
Samara Morgan
@WeeBey:
nope…you see….im talking about mathematical ethics.
statistically Romney cant win. But if any Beeg Podium pundits say that out loud that ruins the horse race.
if Nate talks about it it WILL happen. the ONLY reason any GOP baser would vote for Romney is electability. if there is even a whiff of un-electable about Romney, the base will drop him like a hot rock.
So Nate is is in a dilemma really….he doest want to MAKE history, he wants to statistically analyse it.
:)
DFH no.6
@Martin:
Obviously, the fascist base is less than enthused with Romney. Much as they were not particularly enthused with McCain last time, but got on-board eventually anyway.
I would have expected Perry to be the teabagger choice, thus giving him the nod over Romney.
However – according to polls right now – it seems Perry will not do that, more’s the pity. Maybe the incredible stupidity that just rolls off the man in waves is too much even for the teabaggers.
Maybe Perry can still win the nom (not likely, but we have a ways to go). That’s what I’m rooting for – Perry would play far less well with the true swing voters than Romney, and be a much easier opponent for Obama.
But right now Romney seems most likely to be the fascist nominee (and be a much more difficult opponent for Obama).
Romney’s biggest problem with “electability” is in the primaries, not the general. If he gets past the primaries (I believe he will) it means the GOP electorate (including the teabsaggers and fundamentalists) will rally ‘round him wholeheartedly in the general versus the hated Kenyan Muslim Usurper.
And the right-leaning media will fall all over him.
Sure, to the fascist base (and even to many others) Romney would be the “lesser of two evils”, but he’d be considered not just a little bit “less evil” but a lot.
I don’t agree that would necessarily be a “really shitty way to go into a general”.
smintheus
@butler: Trump was running even if his implosive candidacy was undeclared.
Anyway, Ross Perot did declare for president – twice in the same election. He had no experience in government, no real campaign structure, he did little actual campaigning, and his platform was cobbled together randomly from half-formed ideas and crazy ramblings. And like Cain, he was a media sensation and little more than that. He too was a bad joke.
Nate Silver is simply talking nonsense when he claims that Cain’s run is unprecedented.
smintheus
A look back at Silver’s record in predicting election results would reveal plenty of gaffes. For example, his utterly bizarre predictions before the last British general election were easily the worst I saw anywhere. So I’m afraid he’s not the best person to be complaining about lack of accountability in the media, as much of a problem as that is.
Catsy
@Samara Morgan: Can you make up your mind whether Romney has no chance of being the nominee and there’s nothing anyone can do about bigoted GOP primary voters, or whether he does have a chance and it’s all up to Nate Silver and other influential pundits to push him? I can’t keep up with the dizzying speed of your changing prognostications.
Amir Khalid
@Catsy:
So you figure Cain’s frontrunner because he’s the least disliked candidate? Upon reflection, it might be a combination of your reason and mine, since both our statements about him are true i.e. people favor him by default and for his novelty value.
Which still leaves him and his Potemkin campaign vulnerable for the primary season.
Amir Khalid
@Samara Morgan:
Wow. I never suspected there was such a field of scholarship. Now I’m dying to learn about it.
Samara Morgan
@Catsy: i was perfectly clear for the sapient.
you seem to have comprehension problems.
The only reason any base conservative would vote Romney in the primaries is because he is perceived as electable.
The GOP base detests him.
Now if some pundit questioned the electability premise and raised doubts in the GOP base, they would drop Romney like a hot rock and Cain would get the nom.
I know, i know, our side is “better” than that.
But someone could shape the election by sowing doubts about Romney’s electability.
My personal hypothesis is that if the GOP needs 65% of the white vote to beat O, they wont be able to get it because of anti-mormon sentiment in republicans and independents.
running the maths, i think the best they can get with Romney is 60%. Reagan won with 60%, but there were a lot fewer nonwhite voters back then.
you can agree or disagree.
But demographics is destiny.
:)
Samara Morgan
@Amir Khalid: no you aren’t.