The 1992 election was influenced by a number of factors. The personalities, or characteristics, of the candidates clearly played a role, as did the kind of campaign they ran. Economic conditions were particularly important. However, it is interesting to note that statistical models by economists predicting election results, which emphasize economic trends, were less successful in 1992 than in previous years. Political scientists were more successful.

Models and Perceptions

Four years ago, Ray Fair, an economist at Yale, was hailed for an incredibly accurate prediction. Applying a model that did not include data more recent than six months before the election, he anticipated the outcome of the 1988 contest within .3 of 1%. This model did not include Willie Horton or even Dukakis. It simply analyzed the way in which parameter data anticipated support for the incumbent and the opposition. Other economically based models were also quite accurate.

Successfully applying such models is enough to make journalists and politicians ill, as it suggests that everything they do or write about is useless—that the outcome of elections is determined by pre-existing structural factors, not by candidates, campaign tactics, or ideology. This time Fair was wrong! He predicted that Bush was going to win, since the economy was really not that bad. The 1991-92 downturn was more moderate than the Reagan 1981-82 recession, or the Carter 1977 decline, while the misery index—unemployment plus the inflation rate—was much worse in 1979-80. But Bush was never able to get this message across.

Forecasting presidential elections has become a growth industry in political science. Econometric models used to predict the presidential election that were once viewed as part of “recreational political science” are now being taken seriously. The widespread belief that these models have been highly successful at predicting election outcomes has enticed a score of political scientists to propose new models hoping to share in the triumph of political science over the pundits and polls. Unfortunately, there has been very little critical examination of the models used to forecast presidential elections. A close review reveals that existing quantitative models are not useful predictors of presidential races. In addition, most of the new proposed models have adopted an approach that is unlikely to lead to better forecasts.

If the Clinton administration “looks like America,” then we have become a nation of lawyers and lobbyists.

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that almost all of the top jobs in the Clinton administration are filled by lawyers, lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats. Unlike his predecessors in the White House, Bill Clinton never had any experience outside of politics and government. Among Clinton's top advisors only his Chief of Staff, home-town friend Thomas McLarty, was recruited from the business world. (Secretary of Energy, Hazel O'Leary, was a power company executive at the time of her appointment but most of her career was spent as a Washington-based lobbyist for the power industry.) Nor is there any significant military experience represented on Clinton's top team, although several members are veterans.

Clinton's pledge to bring to Washington an administration that “looks like America” presumably meant more minorities and women appointed to cabinet-level positions. Clinton's initial cabinet team includes three women—Attorney General Janet Reno, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala, and Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary. Three African Americans serve in the Clinton cabinet—Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, Agricultural Secretary Mike Espy, and Veterans Affairs Secretary Jesse Brown; and two Hispanics head departments—HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros and Transportation Secretary Frederico Pena. Comparisons across administrations depend in part on the definition given to “cabinet-level” post in each administration. It appears that the Clinton administration is slightly more “diverse” than that of his immediate predecessor.

First, the good news: 1992-93 is the 2500th anniversary of the birth of democracy. It was in 507-508 B.C. that the reforms of Cleisthenes took place in Athens. In a world seemingly devoid of much to cheer about, here's an excuse to celebrate.

Now, for the quibbles. If Cleisthenes is so important, why have I never heard of him? Moreover, why should I celebrate Athenian democracy when I know from both Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers that it was really mob rule, an example to be avoided at all costs in shaping a constitution for a republic in search of stability and good government? Hasn't Thucydides taught us that the fickleness of the Athenian populace led to repeated Athenian military disasters after the death of Pericles, the Athenian “first citizen” whom Thucydides sees as having ruled over Athens while permitting the masses the illusion that they were in control? Wasn't it an Athenian people's jury that forced the world's greatest philosopher to drink hemlock? Perhaps even more importantly, isn't it (politically) incorrect to call Athens a democracy? How can a militaristic society built on the backs of slaves and the revenues of imperialism, in which women couldn't own property or participate in politics, ever be something to celebrate?!