Beware of Unanimous Analysis
“I probably believe that the worst opinions in my court have been unanimous.
Because there's nobody on the other side pointing out all the flaws.”
— Antonin Scalia
When the Inevitable Becomes…Evitable
Shortly before the 1948 Presidential Election, Newsweek magazine polled 50 experts about who they thought would win. The 50 analysts were unanimous in predicting that New York Governor Thomas Dewey would defeat incumbent President Harry S. Truman. With Dewey enjoying a considerable lead in most polls, Truman pulled off one of the greatest political upsets of all time. The post-election photograph of Truman beaming, holding up a copy of the Chicago Daily Tribune newspaper, displaying the headline, “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN,” became an instant classic.
The polls may actually have been correct at the time they were taken, but as has often been said, polls are only snapshots in time. Their results are susceptible to future events.
Back in 1948, political polling was conducted far less frequently than it is today. While surveys late in the presidential race did show President Truman closing Governor Dewey’s once formidable lead, few were taken in the days just before the election. Dewey ran a cautious campaign, believing that his sizable lead assured him of victory, Truman embarked on his famous Whistle Stop Tour, in which he traveled by train all over the country, drawing mostly large and enthusiastic crowds. His tour generated substantial positive press coverage, which may have impacted not only those who witnessed one of Truman’s speeches, but also many more who heard or read about them. After the President being written off for so long as an inevitable loser, some voters may have been inspired by his never-say-die attitude to give his candidacy another look.
The fact that every single expert that Newsweek polled got it wrong highlights the dangers associated with pack analysis, where all or nearly all of those supposedly in the know make the same prediction or say mostly the same things. Such unanimity can project inevitability even when other potential outcomes remain significantly possible. This can lead to the perception of upsets in races that should never have been considered in such stark terms.
It Happens Over and Over
Though the Truman polling miss was memorable, pack analysis has taken us down the wrong trail of many other election contests, especially in primary elections. In 1974, Jimmy Carter was largely written off by most political analysts when the one-term Georgia Governor announced his candidacy for President. But Carter took advantage of rule changes that shifted the power in selecting the nominee from party bosses to primary-election voters. He campaigned relentlessly—in person, in intimate setting, and at small events—in an attempt to reach out directly to the people who could elect him. Carter even appeared on a popular television game show of the time, What’s My Line?
More recently, several recent presidential candidates from both major parties were written off as likely losers in the early stages of their ultimately successful efforts to gain their respective nominations. The lack of competitiveness in many House races, due in large part to heavily gerrymandered districts, leads to few upsets in Congressional races. When such upsets do occur, their significance is often magnified because few accurately predicted the outcomes.
Some veteran lawmakers have been in office so long that they take their reelection—and consequently, the voters—for granted. They sometimes do not feel the need to campaign, or to take their opponents seriously. Unfortunately, this often fails to make a difference: the vast majority of incumbents who seek reelection win.
At the same time, there is a chance everyday citizens can change this dynamic. With the ability of candidates to fund their campaigns solely through small contributions, and to reach voters in more cost effective ways online, coupled with the public’s almost universal disgust with Congress, the public may be able to level the political playing field.
Summing It Up
Many political experts and voters believe there is little chance of altering the political status quo. But I think that. in the years ahead, there’s a significant possibility we’ll begin to see more political upsets. As new generations of candidates make their presence felt, voters looking for a change will gravitate toward them.
Many such upsets may occur in primary elections as fresh candidates take on members of the old guard, some of whom have not had a major challenger in a very long time, and don’t take any opposition seriously. An old political adage—backed up by some polling—claims that many people are dissatisfied with Congress, but satisfied with their own Representative. Such thinking may outdated. In truth, many citizens don’t even know who their Member of Congress is, but when they vote strictly along party lines, they end up voting for that lawmaker anyway. It’s also not just people no knowing their Representative; a Pew study describes how little Americans know about their government.
Still, if more rookie or underdog candidates enjoy electoral success, others will likely give it a try. The window for change may then open faster and wider than many think possible. The tendency for younger voters to eschew the party system may further improve opportunities for newer candidates.
Regardless of your age, you could be one of that new generation of candidates. Given the massive public dissatisfaction with the political situation in the country, the chances of newcomers getting elected may be a lot higher than what you might think.
Think about that!