The Role of African-American vote in the Democratic Party Primaries

The Democratic party presidential primaries have produced an enigmatic phenomenon.

In predominantly white electorate states (where the African-American electorate is less than 5 percent) such as Iowa and Wisconsin, Senator Obama has drawn large percentage of the White electorate votes -- large enough (more than 40 percentage of the votes) to win those primary elections handily.

Similarly, in primaries with very large African-American electorate (20 percent and more) and even larger African-American vote participation (25 percent and more) such as South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana, Senator Obama again has won handily -- but this time with significantly smaller share (less than 30 percent) of the participating white votes and overwhelming support from very large percentage from the African-American votes. The participation of the African-American electorate in these states was over 40 percent.

And then, in states (e.g. Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Ohio) with moderate percentage of African-American electorate and votes Senator Obama has not been able to draw enough white electorate votes to overcome only a modest percentage (15 - 30 percent) from the African-American vote.

The empirics suggest that the relationship between the probability of Senator Obama's victory in a democratic primary election and the percentage of the African-American population and vote is a U-shaped function.

The US Presidential Elections: The timing of the choice of party's nominee

Lately, there have been several assertions that when the Presidential nominee of a party is decided in the party's convention that the leaves that party vulnerable and the nominee always loses in the fall general elections. However, this argument is premised on weak evidence.

The Democratic party's decisions in 1968 and 1980 and the Republican party's decision in 1976 are cited as supporting evidence.

Here is the problem with the cited evidence. Of course, the nominee was decided in the party conventions those years. But there were also very serious exogenous events in each one of those years. And I think that those exogenous events are more powerful explanatory variables than the timing of the decision of the party nominee.

In 1968, the Democratic party's convention turned to be a dog-fight, and riven with war/anti-war hostilities. The whole spectacle was a turn off for the electorate. Even then, Hubert Humphrey lost to Richard Nixon by less than 1 percent of the votes cast (i.e. the difference of less than 600,000 votes.)

In 1976, the Republican party's convention did not have any of the ugliness of the 1968 Democratic party convention. In fact, the fight between Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford while spirited was dignified. Ford lost to Carter, 48% to 50%. However, Ford had to carry the impossible burden of Watergate scandal and his pardon President Richard Nixon into the campaign -- and that was clearly more determinative of the outcome than the timing of decision of party nominee.

In 1980, Senator Edward Kennedy challenged President Jimmy Carter for party's nomination. Sure, that fight was more personal than the Reagan-Ford fight of 1976. But clearly the national humiliation caused by the Iran hostages, and incredible economic suffering caused by staggering inflation and unemployment [the misery index in 1980 was about 20 -- the inflation rate over 12 percent and unemployment rate over 7 percent] were more determinative of the electoral outcome.

So in each cited case, there was an exogenous factor that was more determinative of the electoral outcome than the timing of the choice of the party nominee.

The State of the Democratic Party Presidential Race: There is a season to the ebb and flow in public life and mood

Senator Hillary Clinton is struggling to keep her democratic nomination alive today though she was the overwhelming favorite just three months back -- in December 2007.

The reason for this is simple: Senator Clinton's almost-perfect certitude in December 2007 that she would prevail. That certitude was reasonable by most objective measures. Senator Clinton did not come to that conclusion lightly. She came to that conclusion after evaluating her competition -- Senator Barack Obama (lack of national exposure and party network) and former Vice-Presidential Candidate John Edwards (has been there already and not succeeded, not a fresh face, a bit too populist) -- and after assessing her own strengths (experience, knowledge, party network.)

Objectively, any external consultant would have agreed with Senator Clinton's assessment of the political landscape as it appeared in December 2007.

As anticipated, John Edwards put up a spirited fight, and then suspended his campaign. But Senator Barack Obama's surprising and resilient strength is just that -- most surprising.

However, in public life, every now and then a candidate who is in almost-complete sync with the public mood emerges, and he/she captures the imagination (e.g, Reagan in 1980 after failing to connect in 1968, and almost succeeding in 1976.) Usually, there are many institutional speed bumps to such a sweep (e.g., Gary Hart in 1984.)

That's what we find with Senator Obama's success this time -- he has captured the broad sweep of imagination of at least the Democratic Party voters, and he is running into many speed bumps but none of them has (yet) derailed him.

Senator Hillary Clinton, nor any one including Senator Obama, could have anticipated this. Nor could any poll have captured this -- it is like asking consumers about wine-coolers when they have no idea what it is.

That is the stuff of public mood and public life. There is a season for things, and quite often we don't control those flows. Senator Obama himself acknowledges and understands this ("fierece urgency of now" quoting Dr. King) -- he may not match the public sentiment in the next season, he does now.

In spite of Senator Barack Obama's surprising strength, Senator Clinton could have still, probably, won the Democratic Party nomination but her well-placed confidence and certitude led to two tactical misjudgments that are now costing her so dearly.

The two misjudgments are: (i) not competing in party caucuses vigorously (among the pledged delegates from the primaries, Senator Clinton trails only by about 20 pledged delegates but when you factor the caucus results, Senator Clinton trails by over 150 pledged delegates); and (ii) not doing enough due diligence about the Democratic Party rules, and absorbing and internalizing those rules for proper strategy execution [e.g., believing that victory in big states should provide the numbers (not so because of proportional representation rules), not absorbing the Texas dual system.]

That's the way life is sometimes. Timing (and some may call it luck or providence) is such a determinant in life. Just as Bill Clinton was wise (or lucky) in taking a pass at the 1988 Presidential elections and equally wise (or lucky) in joining the fray in 1992, Senator Hillary Clinton's time may have been 2004 or it may be 2012 or 2016.

It appears from all conventional metrics that the mood of the electorate favors the Democratic nominee in fall but who really knows? No poll can measure this.

WHY INDIA IS A BETTER BET THAN CHINA (OR BRAZIL OR RUSSIA)? by Gurumurthy Kalyanaram

Comment: This article was written about a year back but the basic facts and inferences remain valid.

India is a better economic bet than China (or Russia or Brazil) if you have a ten or twenty-year horizon. Why?

In addition to the democratization of its polity, and liberalization of its economy (both of which are now legendary), the autonomy and democracy of India’s financial markets, its entrepreneurial spirit, and its educational system are important additional elements that make India so alluring.

This story has not been told, not told at least as vividly.

The norms and regulations of the financial markets, and the enforcement and supervision by Securities Exchange Board of India of these regulations are very credible, if not perfect. And they have made the Indian stock and bond markets transparent and investor-friendly. Rob Gensler, manager of T. Rowe Price Global Stock Fund says, “The quantity and quality of information you get (from Indian companies) is, in many cases, as good or better than what you get from U.S. companies.”

And then listen to Mark Hadley, president of Asian specialist Matthews International Capital Management: “Infosys set the standard for a lot of Indian and Asian companies.”

China’s (and Russia’s) financial markets and corporate governance are primitive. And if you believe Doug North, the 1993 economics nobel laureate, it would take at least 30-40 years for China (or Russia) to develop these institutions.

MIT professor Yasheng Huang tells, “India has done a better job than China” in nurturing entrepreneurship and supporting healthy competition. From India, a group of world-class companies such as Infosys in software, Ranbaxy in pharmaceuticals, Bajaj Auto in automobile components, and Mahindra in car assembly are emerging. And this has not “happened by accident,” per Huang.

Finally, there is the educational system. While there are many flaws to the Indian educational system, there is a fair amount of autonomy and freedom and entrepreneurship in primary, secondary, and higher education. And this has increasingly created a more relevant and market-oriented education (be it teaching of English language or the content of the curriculum.)

Again, per Huang, “India has quietly and persistently improved its educational provisions, especially in rural areas. For sustainable economic development, the quantity and quality of human capital will matter far more than those of physical capital. India seems to have the right policy and if China does not invest in rural education soon, it may lose its true competitive edge over India.”

Finally, political democracy has itself been an excellent prescription for India’s economy. Sure there have been many false starts and erroneous policies but there have been no calamitous decisions. The country has not gone through traumatic experiences of Latin America (where many economies collapsed because they followed market-economy thoughtlessly) or RussiaChina (Mao’s cultural revolution.) (Stalin’s blighted policies) or

In my recent visit to China, Mr. Ji, Chairman of Beijing-Hualin – a billion US dollar company – told me that “there is too little government in India, and that’s good.” Why? “India will never make such huge misjudgments. There will never be a cultural revolution when about 35 million Chinese were killed and the country was set behind by decades.”

India’s political democracy where different constituents make their claims has kept the economic policies moderated.

Look at the recent economic liberalization policies. True, the vigorous liberalization policies initiated by India in 1991 and continued at varying degrees in the last fifteen years have unlocked the growth potential. And that’s wonderful.

But in this enthusiasm for liberalization, India almost forgot the challenge of poverty and its impact on growth and mass prosperity. Over 300 million Indians live in poverty. Per recent World Bank Report, 10% reduction in poverty would boost the growth rate by about 1% and increase the foreign direct investment by about 8%.

So far India to continue its impressive growth, one of the critical components of the strategy has to be poverty reduction programs that add assets to the society.

And this is where the role of Indian communists and socialists is to be commended. Their relentless focus on the poor and disfranchised is very beneficial (though their lack of acceptance of certain economic reforms has also been an impediment.)

The balance that the Indian political and economic policy makers have achieved is now the recommended economic strategy by the recent World Bank Report. And this policy is a direct result of the wonderful pulls and pushes created by the political democracy.

Undoubtedly, India is the best bet of all the emerging markets.

A SHORT BRIEF ON THE NOVEMBER (2004) PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

Comment: As we enter the Presidential electoral season, I am posting this brief on the 2004 Presidential Elections. This was written on October 5, 2004

Summary: Completely independent of my preferences, I predict that Kerry will win the Presidential elections on November 2, 2004. It is likely that Senator will get about 49% of the popular vote, and President will get about 47% of the popular vote. Further, I expect that Senator Kerry to secure at least about 280 electoral votes.

This has been forecast since June 2004. There have been good times and bad times (politically) for both Senator Kerry and President Bush but my prediction is still the same as it was in June 2004.

Reasons: There are three robust and stubborn structural reasons -- largely anchored in Iraq and to a lesser degree in the Economy -- for this conclusion. The reasons are:

(1) Right vs. Wrong Direction for the country: On average about 50% of the Americans believe that the country is in the wrong direction, and about 40-42% of the Americans believe that the country is moving in the right direction. That is a deficit of about 8-10 points for the President, the incumbent on this critical element.

(2) President Bush vs. Some One New: When asked President Bush vs. Some One New, about 45% of Americans want to reelect the President and about 50% want to elect Some One New (John Kerry is not evoked.) That is a deficit of about 5 points on average for the President.

(3) President Bush’s Job Approval Rating: Excluding outliers, the average of job approval ratings of the President for the last ten months (the average of the election year is what the model requires) is about 47%. That is not enough for reelection --- the President falls short by about 4-5 points.

The President’s job approval rating among the limited percentage (about 8-10%) of the undecideds is about 31%. The President is likely to secure only about one-third of the undecided votes, the other two-thirds going to the challenger Senator John Kerry.

There is one algebraic/tactical reason to be pointed out. If Kerry won all the states that Gore won in 2000, then Kerry would secure 260 electoral votes (it takes 270 to win the Presidency.) Except for Wisconsin, Kerry has been leading or marginally ahead or marginally (but statistically within the margin of error) behind in all the states that Gore won in 2000. In addition to the states that Gore won in 2000 (I expect Kerry to win Wisconsin too on the coattails of Senator Russ Feingold and with the greater consolidation of the support of the Democratic constituencies), I expect Kerry to win ten electoral votes from the portfolio of Colorado, New Hampshire, Nevada, and/or West Virginia.

Note that Colorado’s nine electoral votes may be apportioned in proportion to the popular vote if the current proposal for such an apportionment effective this election is approved by the Colorado voters on November 2^nd. (At this point, the said referendum is leading by 47% to 37%.) There are only two other states – Maine and Nebraska – which apportion the electoral votes in some manner other than winner-takes-it-all. In any case, if the election of the Presidency come to the votes from Colorado, there is likely to be challenge at the US Supreme Court which, in my opinion, will affirm the state’s right in this matter.

In my calculations, I have awarded Florida and Ohio to the President but he still will fall short.

However, please note that in spite of serious structural issues the President is likely to be holding his own in the opinion polls or even leading Senator John Kerry by a few points till the last week of the elections. History shows that Americans are very reluctant to retire their incumbent presidents – it takes a lot.

Remember Jimmy Carter – he was holding his own against Reagan till late October but in the last one week the floor caved.

Opinion Polls, Polls and Polls: There are so many polls and so many pollsters that it is difficult to make sense. But based on my analyses, the following polls and pollsters have demonstrated predictive-ability.

National Polls

First-Tier

(1) Zogby poll: Has been very good, and continues to be good; and

(2) CBS News/New York Times poll: Has been very good, and more lately has been somewhat questionable but still reliable, I think.

Second-Tier

(1) LA Times poll: Okay poll – best of the second-tier polls;

(2) NBC-Wall Street Journal poll: Okay but always slightly overstates the republican support; and

(3) ABC-Washington Post poll: Okay poll – just adequately above the threshold.

Pew Research, Harris poll, Annenberg poll and the AP poll are all respectable and non-partisan but I don’t think that they have the correct predictive models. They are better descriptors of the behavior and patterns.

CNN/USA Today/Gall Up poll, Newsweek poll, and Time poll are not reliable predictor polls for a variety of reasons.

State Electoral Polls

(1) Mason-Dixon poll: Only for Southern States;

(2) Field poll: Only for California – and okay for western states only; and

(3) Quinnipiac poll: Only for the Eastern sea-board states.

What makes a poll a good poll or a bad poll in a Presidential Race? In my opinion, the following criteria represent some of the important elements:

(1) Track Record: Zogby and CBS/NY Times score high on this; Gall Up, Newsweek and others score relatively low. See 1996 and 2000 presidential elections. On November 6, 2000... the final CNN/Gallup tracking poll showed Bush over Gore 47-45. Wall St. Journal: Bush over Gore 47-44. ABC/Washington Post: Bush over Gore 48-45. Tarrance: Bush over Gore 46-41. Christian Science Monitor: Bush over Gore 48-46. Only CBS (Gore over Bush by 1) and Zogby (Gore 47-Bush 46) got it correct. (Gore received 500,000 more votes than Bush... though Bush, with Florida, won the "electoral college" and the White House.)

(2) Sampling: How many democrats and republicans and independents in the sample? I think that Zogby’s model of basing the proportions on the recent past (1996 and 2000) voting behavior and attitude is most robust because the empirics show that basic consumer behaviors and attitudes such as party affiliation are stable, persistent and in equilibrium. Gall Up, News week, Pew Research and Battleground polls do not subscribe to this model – they subscribe to the belief that the voter attitudes regarding basic attribute of party affiliation can change from week to week (and I disagree with them.)

(3) Determination of Likely Voters: There are many models but I best like CBS/NY Times probabilistic model. See the methodology of October 4^th poll of CBS/NY Times. Zogby is also okay.

(4) Undecideds: Except for Zogby who does not force the undecideds to decide till the last week before the actual vote, others do. I agree with Zogby’s approach – undecideds should not be forced into a decision earlier in the cycle.

(5) The Measuring Scale(s): I disagree with Zogby’s scale to measure the job approval rating but on other metrics, the Zogby scales are quite clear and consistent. Not necessarily so with all the other polls on various metrics.

(6) Voter turnout: The strength and the mix of the voter turnout on November 2 matters. Different models make different assumptions. The general assumption is that the turnout would be about 55% but it could potentially be higher this time. Another assumption is regarding the turn out of the mix of various constituencies – for example, models assumed about 13% minority turnout in 2000 but the minority turn out was about 19% (Zogby got this mix correctly, not many others.)

Final Thoughts:

Watch for the Zogby’s daily tracking national poll beginning on Thursday, October 7^th, and Zogby’s battleground states’ daily tracking polls beginning on October 21^st.

Of course, watch for Zogby’s and CBS/NY Times’ polls released on the evening of November 1^st. If Senator John Kerry is at a tie or within a point as he enters the elections, Senator Kerry wins the elections because the undecideds will break in his favor -- also don’t forget that lots and lots of new voters coming into the fold, and the new voters tend to vote more democratic.