After posting — Who pays attention to sports economists? — on Sunday morning I decided that this story would make for a good Huffington Post column. So Sunday evening I re-wrote the story and posted “Should the House Democrats Have Changed Coaches?”.
The primary difference in the two posts is a thought that occurred to me on Sunday afternoon. Essentially Mark Mellman argued that Nancy Pelosi should keep her leadership position with the House Democrats because – as the research of J.C. Bradbury, my co-authors, and I indicated – leaders don’t have much impact on outcomes. Therefore Pelosi shouldn’t be blamed for the outcome of the midterm elections. Although I agree that leaders are blamed too much for failures, it occurred to me that the reverse is also true. Specifically, leaders shouldn’t get much credit for success. And if that is the case, what is the argument that Pelosi should keep her leadership position? Why not just rotate these positions among the available people in Congress?
As I note, not sure I think rotating these posts is the best way these jobs should be assigned. But I do think that leaders are given too much blame and credit for the outcomes we observe.
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
Evan
December 6, 2010
I generally dislike it when non-experts comment on politics. They almost always overrate how qualified they are to opine. It’s like Hollinger using PER to comment on basketball: he’s a smart enough guy, but he clearly lacks wisdom and knowledge in the subject.
You’re largely correct that Pelosi wasn’t responsible for Dem successes in 06 and 08: dislike of W, Iraq, and Obama voter turnout droves those wins. But if you don’t think Pelosi hurt D performance in 2010, then I think you probably haven’t spent much time in the Southern/Midwestern districts that flipped, nor spent much time combing through polls or focus groups.
sandalstraps
December 7, 2010
But, Evan, the state of the economy is the primary indicator of how an election will go. If the economy is doing well (or is seen to be doing well), then the party in power is likely to retain power. If it is doing poorly (or seen to be doing poorly), then the party in power is likely to be replaced. It is tempting to craft anecdotal narratives to explain political outcomes in a poor apparently rational way (since this process is irrational, as political decisions seem to have less impact on economic systems than other factors), but there’s no good reason to do that.
Since that’s the case, how is winning or losing an election really to be attributed to leadership?
Evan
December 7, 2010
Sandalstraps — Points per game is also the primary indicator of how good an NBA player is.
In other words, yes, if reduced to a single variable model, you might be tempted to take “the economy” (which actually, you’d need to quantify which stat you were using…unemployment, GDP growth, etc, though in a single variable model it’s all basically the same) just like if you reduce NBA productivity to a single model, then you should probably take points per game. That doesn’t, however, make it a good model, even if your name is Ray Fair.
Italian Stallion
December 7, 2010
Personally, I think both the economy and the actions of those in power are a factor.
The economy was in dreadful shape when the democrats took power.
In response, the democrats expanded government spending further, expanded the role of government (health care reform), continued with the bailouts of Wall ST and other major corporations both directly and indirectly (using the Fed), threatened to raise capital gains, dividend, and other taxes that would impact business valuations, investment, portfolio values etc….
Many of those in the middle that don’t understand these matters simply voted for change.
Many of those in the middle that do understand these matters concluded that the democrats were heading in the wrong direction.
I think the political middle is in favor of a small efficient government, a simplified efficient tax system, a balanced budget, growth of government that’s in line with growth of GDP, limited government involvement overseas and/or in our personal lives, reform of the system so that the wealthy (foreign or domestic) cannot buy influence and power, regulation of financial system and punishment of fraud and abuse, no bailouts, etc…
So basically the middle is in favor of revolution. lmao
It just doesn’t know it yet.
We certainly are going to get any of those things democratically when the country is basically run by Wall ST and other rich and powerful elites. That horse left the barn decades ago when we created a Fed, expanded government etc….
It’s like the old question about why people rob banks.
Because that’s where the money is.
Why is government incompetent, corrupt, and out of control, etc…
Because that’s where we put a ton of money and the money creation.
Daniel
December 7, 2010
Pelosi is a pretty unlikeable person to be the head of the party. I personally think leadership in the Legislative Branch this should mirror that of departments in the University– with chairs simply being scheduled to play the role for a couple years and step down at a preordained time. Right now, leadership only changes when the media or the public are embittered towards the leader– not a positive climate for new leadership nor a constructive atmosphere for the leader stepping down.
It’s more like demoting the captain of a team than replacing a coach- a humiliating experience because that player is STILL ON THE TEAM! The current haphazard process is not a good one for engendering an atmosphere of respect during leadership changes.
brgulker
December 7, 2010
So what does this say about Dr. Berri, the leader of the WoW Network of blogs?
:D
sandalstraps
December 7, 2010
Um, no, Evan, points per game has (almost) nothing to do with how “good” an NBA player is. It indicates nothing except that a player was able to take many shots, and has nothing to do with the outcome of games. That’s the whole point of this forum, which does, in fact, offer a single model that strongly correlates player performance with wins.
As for the relationship between the economy and elections, Ezra Klein of the Washington post summarizes the findings of both economists and political scientists nicely here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/10/AR2010071000071.html
There’s a pretty good graph on the subject accompanying the article, too:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/07/09/GR2010070905854.html
The myth that the actions and personalities of political figures is a driving force in elections is rooted in our innately human discomfort with randomness. We would like to believe that politicians are principally responsible for generating their outcomes for the same reason that we’d like to believe that a coach can have a significant impact on the performance of his/her team: we don’t want to admit that we do not control our own outcomes. It is existentially disorienting to think that randomness happens. That reminds me that I can be walking down the street minding my own business and get run over by a reckless driver. Or that, through no fault of my own, my investment portfolio that I was counting on for retirement can lose all of its value. Someone has to be able to control these events, we think to ourselves.
But often times, no, that’s not the case. And the coach can’t make my favorite team stop sucking. And my political party can’t run a great ad campaign and turn the tide of the election. And I’m not solely in charge of my own destiny. Stuff happens.
Daniel
December 7, 2010
I’d say founder is a little different than leader in terms of taking responsibility for success.
brgulker
December 7, 2010
Hopefully my sarcasm was obvious. If not I was being sarcastic :)
dberri
December 7, 2010
Actually, the impact of my “leadership” is quite obvious. So I can’t imagine anyone questioning what I have done :)