By Roy C. Smith
Certainly for economists, this is likely to be the most unpredictable, exasperating and mindless US presidential election contest in generations. It will also be the most interesting.
Results from the early “primary” elections for delegates to the presidential nominating conventions in July, have frontrunners Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton modestly ahead as the process heads into “Super Tuesday” (March 1), when 11 states vote, followed by another 20 inside the next two weeks. Delegates are awarded on a proportionate basis before March 15, and winner-take-all afterwards. Most of the large states have their primaries after March 15. California, the last, is on June 7.
Primaries are brutal tests of endurance, organization, media management and fund raising. Fewer than 20% of registered voters participated in the 2012 presidential primaries, so to win candidates, have to be able to attract the votes of those motivated to show up, usually the most politically extreme.
This year, both parties have been greatly shaken up by populists of the sort that never would have impressed voters in the past. Both Trump and Bernie Sanders, the lifelong socialist seeking the Democratic nomination, are enjoying surprising success because they have tapped into deep-seated anger and frustration of blue collar workers who’s real incomes have been stagnant since the 1970s and who’s economic future seems bleak and beyond their own control.
They have a point. Real GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2015 was 1.0%, bringing the annual rate to 2.4%, the same as for 2014 -- well below the US historical average of about 3.5%.
More alarming is the fact that real GDP growth has averaged only about 2% for the past 15 years – one of the longest growth slumps in US history. The stock market turmoil so far this year (partly influenced by the campaigns) has increased the fear of the economy getting worse.
The lack of growth has focused populist arguments on economic “victims” and “income inequality,” the share of the economic pie that different segments of society get. The appeal of 74-year old Bernie Sanders is his passionate argument that the system is so fundamentally and unfairly flawed that it can only be fixed by changes so radical that they have never been presented to the electorate before. The electorate, especially the younger part of it, is listening carefully.
Hillary Clinton, however, is still the favorite to win the Democratic nomination, because of her resources, organization and political legacy within the party. But, her campaign has faltered. Sanders has forced her well to the left into an awkward place for her, as she and all her family have been made very wealthy from speaker fees paid by Big Business that Sanders disdains, and other windfalls available only to celebrities like them.
At this point, Clinton has 544 of the 2,382 delegates needed (including 432 party assigned “super-delegate” votes), and Sanders has 85 (16 super-delegates). Excluding super-delegates, the vote count is very close and Sanders seems to be gaining momentum.
Trump’s economic positions have almost no connection to mainstream Republican economic policy lines. Like Bernie Sanders, he is against foreign trade deals, against entitlement reform, for tariffs on Chinese and Mexican goods, for taxing hedge funds and breaking up the banks, and for large government-financed health care and infrastructure programs
Yet, the Trump machine continues to roll on. He got more votes in South Carolina from right-wing evangelicals than right-wing evangelical Ted Cruz.
But it is not clear that Trump’s appeal will carry over to the more urban, better-educated, less evangelical populations. If more moderates participate in the coming primaries, their votes, cast among a smaller number of continuing candidates, may dilute the power of Trump’s supporters, making it difficult for him to gather the 1,237 delegates needed to secure the nomination (he has only 82 now, Cruz has 17).
If this proves to be the case, delegates voting at the convention will determine the nomination. This is what the Republican Party establishment is hoping for; that the outcome would be “brokered” (something that has not happened to Republicans since 1948) and Donald Trump would be blocked.
But after the conventions, the two nominees will have to battle each other, and a hard fight ought to emerge over economic policy, the key issue to most voters.
The Democratic candidate will have to defend the Obama administration’s lackluster economic record and explain how alleviating income inequality can enable growth, and how his or her policies might ever be enacted, given that the Republicans control both Houses of Congress and have already rejected Barack Obama’s effort to achieve a ”fair share” tax increase on the wealthy.
The Republican candidate will have to explain how his plan will restart the growth engine without having all the benefits going to the wealthiest Americans, which of course includes Donald Trump.
There are lots of things to talk about – why productivity growth is down despite great technological advances; the need for tax reforms; the cost-vs-benefit of the many new regulations of the past eight years; and how future social welfare claims are to be paid for, especially when the national debt is already large.
The discussion is likely to be pretty thin, however. Clinton has credible economic advisers, but no real policy agenda; neither Trump nor Sanders have advisers and their agendas have been broadly declared unworkable.
If the nominees turn out to be Trump and Sanders, there may yet be another outcome. Former NY Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, has said he may become a third-party candidate, hoping to win enough votes to deny a victory to either of the others. If so, it would throw the election into the Republican controlled House of Representatives that just might select a more centrist and broadly acceptable candidate (such as Bloomberg) instead.
More likely, it could end up as most third party candidacies do and draw votes away from the favorite to elect the likely loser instead, as happened to Bill Clinton when Ross Perot took votes 19% of the votes away from George H. W. Bush in 1992.
from eFinancial News, Feb 29, 2016