Presidential Prediction 2000

A Presidential election has many similarities to the Superbowl that determines the football championship each year. Both are contests between two highly skilled professional teams. Both attract great public interest. Both are heavily financed. Both are the result of years of preparation and months of intense effort. The outcome of both

Page 41

cannot be predicted with certainty before election day or the Superbowl game.

Many people make bets or predictions on the outcome of the Superbowl football game. I will venture a prediction on the Presidential election. In contrast to the Superbowl, when the two opponents are selected less than a month before, the Presidential nominees in 2000 are most likely to be Democratic Vice President Al Gore and Republican Texas Governor George W. Bush.

Three conditions that favor the election of Gore are listed in sequence of predicted influence. The first advantage of Gore is that as Vice President, he has much name recognition and is widely respected. A generally unrecognized advantage is his difference in temperament from Clinton. The dutiful, earnest, introspective Gore will be attractive to many voters after the flamboyant, gregarious, self-indulgent Clinton. Popular Presidents who were less sociable and charismatic than Gore include Madison, Grant, Cleveland, Wilson, Coolidge, and Nixon.

A general psychological tendency is to become adapted to a familiar stimulus, so that a contrasting stimulus is more conspicuous and attractive. This is the basis for the saying “the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence.” Eight years of one President tends to stimulate the desire for a contrasting President. The history of the United States indicates that the voters usually elect a contrasting President when the incumbent is approaching the end of his second elected term. There have been nine such transitions. Six

Page 71

transitions have been to a member of the incumbent’s party. The tall, athletic, diplomatic military hero Washington was followed by the short, intellectual, contentious John Adams. The tall, affable Jefferson was followed by the short, reclusive Madison. The successor of Madison was the tall, charming Monroe. The tall, aggressive military hero Jackson was followed by the short, diplomatic, clever Van Buren. The friendly delegator Reagan was followed by the competitive, diligent Bush. Three transitions have been to a member of opposing party. The assertive reformer Cleveland, who served two interrupted terms, was replaced after his second term by the genial, conservative McKinley. The scholarly, idealistic Wilson was replaced by the gentle, hedonistic Harding. The elderly, conciliatory military leader Eisenhower was replaced by the young, assertive Kennedy.

The second advantage of Gore is Democratic President Clinton’s support. The incumbent claims the credit for the current economic prosperity. Republican majorities in Congress have alienated the majority of voters. Impeachment of Clinton has united the Democrats and split the Republicans. Acquittal of Clinton has boosted his popularity.

The third advantage of Gore is his residence in Tennessee, a Southern state. Because of current Republican dominance in the South, Gore can attract electoral votes that otherwise would be won by the Republican nominee. Clinton’s Arkansas residence likewise was an advantage in 1992 and 1996. An opposite situation for the Democrats was from 1837 to 1945, when they were dominant in the Southern states. During that long time span, the Democratic Presidential nominee was always a Northerner.

Three conditions are advantageous for the probable Republican nominee, George W. Bush. His first advantage is that he has taken a centrist position, rejecting the Christian moralistic wing of the Republican Party. This is similar to Clinton’s centrist position in 1992, rejecting the “tax and spend” liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

The second advantage for Bush is that as a son of a recent President, Bush has even more name recognition than the incumbent Vice President. The desire for a contrasting personality to the two-term Democratic incumbent, Clinton, might extend to the desire for the son and namesake of the President whom Clinton defeated in 1992. Some voters will choose the Republican nominee because of hatred for Clinton or disapproval of Clinton’s sexual activities.

The third advantage of Bush is recent preponderance of Republican Presidents and a Republican majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives. It is possible that the United States has shifted from prevalent preference for Democratic Party leadership, from 1933 to 1969, to prevalent preference for Republican party leadership, beginning in 1969. The Republicans were the dominant party in a lengthy earlier era, 1861-1933.

I believe that the three reasons favoring Gore are stronger than the three reasons favoring Bush. I therefore conclude that Gore will probably be elected President on November 7, 2000.

The foregoing advantages omit the probable most influential condition, the national economy. This is because of the potential for a major change prior to the Presidential election of 2000. The current situation of prosperity, low inflation, and a federal budget surplus is highly advantageous for the Democratic nominee. In the 1992 election, shortly after the recession of 1991, a slogan of Clinton’s campaign was “It’s the economy, stupid.” The same slogan will favor the Democratic nominee if the current economic prosperity continues.

A possible change is an economic recession. Stock market prices are unusually high. A reversion to traditional values would be a traumatic decrease in the stock prices, probably followed by an economic recession. I expect a stock market crash, but it seems unlikely to occur prior to the election. Such crashes in the past have occurred more often in the first year of a Presidential term, such as in 1929. If the stock market does crash before November 2000, the Clinton administration will strenuously attempt to counteract its effects. The long-term consequence of this attempt may be severe inflation, but that adverse event may be postponed until after the election of 2000.

Former basketball star and United States Senator Bill Bradley is competing with Al Gore for the Democratic Presidential nomination. If Bradley wins, his New Jersey residence will deprive him of Gore’s advantage of being a Southerner. A possible advantage for Bradley would be his weaker association and therefore stronger contrast with President Clinton.

Numerous Republicans are competing with

Page 72

George W. Bush for the Republican nomination. Most of Bush’s rivals are allied to the Christian moralistic faction of the Republican Party. If any of these moralistic candidates is the Republican nominee, many Republicans will vote for the Democratic nominee or for a minor party candidate.

My prediction of the election in 2000 is largely based on inferences from previous Presidential elections. The possibility of drastic change adds to the uncertainty of the prediction. I believe that a drastic change is impending. Two previous major stages of United States history both had a duration of 72 years. The first was 1789-1861, ending with the onset of the Civil War. The second was 1861-1933, ending with the onset of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. If the 72-year cycle of 18 Presidential elections is a valid tendency, a new, different stage may be expected to begin in 2005. A small variation in duration could shift the onset of the new stage to the election in 2000.

I encourage other people, in addition to myself, to predict the outcome of the Presidential election of 2000 and specify the psychohistorical reasons for the prediction. The election will either support or contradict the prediction and therefore the reasons for it. Either outcome will advance our understanding of elections and psychohistory.

Page 73