Because it’s a simplifying assumption of the model. In the real world politicians do kiss babies because there is some uncertainty (even if elections are almost always a function of unemployment.)
even if elections are almost always a function of unemployment.
I’d like to hear more of your thoughts. How much greater is the influence of unemployment than, say, the ability of the incumbent powers to create a real or perceived external threat?
What I should have said is that the vast majority variation in election outcomes can be explained by incumbency, the absolute levels of unemployment, and recent trends in unemployment. (If you’re comparing across jurisdictions, throw in demographics as a simple shock in one party’s direction.) This is a weaker claim than the one I irresponsibly made—“incumbency” includes effects that work both ways (for instance, Presidential incumbency is a barrier to his party in mid-term elections, while some incumbency advantage may be tracking the sort of threats you mention.) Additionally, campaign tactics can end up mattering in the peripheral case of one candidate simply not bothering—witness the case of Martha Coakley. But since most campaigns are run at at least the minimal level of competence necessary to avoid this, campaign competence is generally irrelevant. And, finally, things that genuinely matter are captured by the unemployment effect—for instance, fundraising and volunteer hours. (In the case of fundraising, the effect is double—people hungry for change/happy with the status quo send money to effect that, and smart corporations invest in the likely winner.)
There are definite effects for “real or percieved threats”—it’s called the “rally-round-the-flag effect”—but it comes up in such a small portion of elections that you can generally ignore it until it, well, comes up. But when it matters at all it matters.
This obviously applies less to primaries of non-incumbent parties, since the unemployment factor is controlled. There is where donors, strategy, and candidate-specific factors play the most important role. And I’m not as familiar with non-US contexts.
The truth behind all these caveats is that almost all campaign coverage you seen in the US—minute analysis of the events of the last news cycle—is for entertainment value only. Joe Biden having a gaffe or Obama giving a moving speech on race relations is not going to effect anything in the least. They cover things in this silly way because the alternative would be bad for ratings.
That doesn’t seem like a good reason for ignoring relevant evidence to the point where you do a stupid thing. Does using evidential decision theory really lead to being barfed on by babies this easily?
Because it’s a simplifying assumption of the model. In the real world politicians do kiss babies because there is some uncertainty (even if elections are almost always a function of unemployment.)
I’d like to hear more of your thoughts. How much greater is the influence of unemployment than, say, the ability of the incumbent powers to create a real or perceived external threat?
What I should have said is that the vast majority variation in election outcomes can be explained by incumbency, the absolute levels of unemployment, and recent trends in unemployment. (If you’re comparing across jurisdictions, throw in demographics as a simple shock in one party’s direction.) This is a weaker claim than the one I irresponsibly made—“incumbency” includes effects that work both ways (for instance, Presidential incumbency is a barrier to his party in mid-term elections, while some incumbency advantage may be tracking the sort of threats you mention.) Additionally, campaign tactics can end up mattering in the peripheral case of one candidate simply not bothering—witness the case of Martha Coakley. But since most campaigns are run at at least the minimal level of competence necessary to avoid this, campaign competence is generally irrelevant. And, finally, things that genuinely matter are captured by the unemployment effect—for instance, fundraising and volunteer hours. (In the case of fundraising, the effect is double—people hungry for change/happy with the status quo send money to effect that, and smart corporations invest in the likely winner.)
There are definite effects for “real or percieved threats”—it’s called the “rally-round-the-flag effect”—but it comes up in such a small portion of elections that you can generally ignore it until it, well, comes up. But when it matters at all it matters.
This obviously applies less to primaries of non-incumbent parties, since the unemployment factor is controlled. There is where donors, strategy, and candidate-specific factors play the most important role. And I’m not as familiar with non-US contexts.
The truth behind all these caveats is that almost all campaign coverage you seen in the US—minute analysis of the events of the last news cycle—is for entertainment value only. Joe Biden having a gaffe or Obama giving a moving speech on race relations is not going to effect anything in the least. They cover things in this silly way because the alternative would be bad for ratings.
That doesn’t seem like a good reason for ignoring relevant evidence to the point where you do a stupid thing. Does using evidential decision theory really lead to being barfed on by babies this easily?