|
NOVEMBER FLASH NEWSLETTER
FAR November Luncheon
"Economic Outlook: Post Election"
|
| |
Molly Reynolds
|
John Hudak
|
For several months now FAR members have looked forward to some post-election insight from Brookings Institution analysts Molly Reynolds and John Hudak. Following the unexpected outcomes of last week's election, Molly and John opened their presentation by describing the results as a "humbling experience." Why were the predictions so off? And what can we expect in 2017 and beyond?
To answer the first question John pointed out that the election was far closer than the Electoral College results would suggest. Hillary Clinton won more of the popular vote than any candidate with the exception of Barak Obama. In states where she lost the electoral vote it was by no more than 50-60 thousand votes. Overall, voters struggled to find the right candidate when neither Trump nor Clinton really cut it. Trump's campaign - big on message but short on ideas - clearly won out. When asked if there were any historical campaigns that would parallel this one, John suggested that the closest we came to an upset like this was in 1980 when incumbent Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan, who was perceived by many as an entertainer and not a serious national leader.
While voters went for a "change candidate" in the White House, an overwhelming percentage of incumbents were re-elected to Congress. Partisanship still rules the day.
What can we expect in 2017? First off, look for changes in the Affordable Care Act, a new tax package, and a pull-back on government regulations. Less certain is how a unified Congress will work with a less conventional President, especially on issues of debt reduction, entitlements and the funding of an infrastructure package. The Republican majority in the Senate is slim and Republicans within that majority are not unified.
As the program ended one FAR member asked "How can we trust the polls?" John made the points that, while polling science is quite good, the gaps revealed that something is going on in the electorate that the pollsters across the board had not considered. Polls are expensive, making it harder to get a good sample across the nation. State polls are more valuable than national pools and, overall, benefit the campaigns more than the voter. In some cases, the results of the polls may reduce voter turn-out.
| 
