Guessing the Future
Life is an Incomplete Information Problem. Pundits have to interpret events and predict the future based on the information at hand. Note, I said “information,” and not facts. We know less about facts than we do about what is reported to us—which might or might not be true. Voters then have to take the information they get—mostly second and third hand, with only some of it from observing the politicians in action—and make a decision. The scope of our ignorance, which ids not to say stupidity, is daunting.
Poor information, filtered through expert spin, attack, and misrepresentation, makes both good predictions and confident choices rare.
So Bridget is for Giuliani because he’s electable—even if he is weak on core conservative values. Presumably he is electable on the defense issue and his strong image as a tough guy. Chris counters that the Iraq War is going to be an albatross hung around his neck and that his close association with Bush will drag him down to Goldwater-like defeat.
I say with utter confidence that we don’t know anything and that all our punditry presumes that nothing major changes in the world. This is not a good bet to make.
The great imponderable, that we will now ponder, is a terrorist act on our soil. We have no idea how we would react politically and psychologically. It would depend on too many variables. How big is the attack? Is it against people or iconic structures or both? Is it by a means that Homeland Security was supposed to have stopped or something fairly unforeseen? Was it carried out by Saudis or Iranians, Pakistanis or Albanians? Did it happen two months or two days prior to the election? All of these would make great differences. This much is clear. The nature and scope of their influence is not predictable by any polls. We cannot say in advance how we will feel when disaster strikes.
A natural disaster on the scale of Katrina, a major earthquake as big as Northridge or greater and the predictable Federal incompetence and a war election can become a domestic election.
What happens if the Republicans nominate Rudy or Romney and Christian Conservatives run a compelling third party candidate? What happens if the Democrats nominate Hillary and the left finds someone more compelling than Ralph Nader? What happens if just for fun Bloomberg (R D I) of New York and Senator Chuck Hegel ® run on a national unity ticket? All bets are off.
Want a sure thing? Surprise is our only certainty.
Speaking of what we'd do in a terror attack: that's something L A isn't devoting enough money to. Bratton has done a great job with what he's got (and Baca has even more resources) and is working with the FBI, other agencies. But we need more cops, a lot more attention to the problem.
And our hospitals couldn't handle a major epidemic like bird flu or sars; we didn't even have enough antibiotics last time for the regular flu. With 8 hospitals closed in the county recently, it's not just an issue of ineptitude but of public safety.
Safety in both these areas starts at the local level.
On a national level, Obama is too naive, Romney too far out for the Conservatives, so that leaves Rudy or Thompson vs. Hillary. Since her secret weapon is past Pres. Bill, it will be a close race.
Jonathan, you're absolutely right on this one: There are way too many variables to make a sound prediction. In addition to all the ones you've mentioned, there are also scandals -- you know opposition research is already under way -- to say nothing of gaffes like the Howard Dean scream.
Predicting campaigns now is like predicting who's going to win the Super Bowl in June. It's a fool's errand -- but it's fun, and there's a fool in every one of us.
Besides, if we're right, we can pat ourselves on the head for being so smart. And if we're wrong, we can say -- hey, it was just a meaningless long-term prediction!