Okay we are entering an Election Cycle

 

 

Save me!

Sifting through the numbers of this Politico article it is clear that many people in this country are less than enthusiastic about the up coming election.  There seemed to be a collective groan across the United States when Nikki Haley officially dropped out of the republican primaries, leaving Donald Trump as the presumptive republican candidate.  At this point in time both Trump and Biden have garnered enough delegates to rise from presumptive to official status.  So it is now official; a repeat of the 2020 presidential election.  The last repeat election was in 1956.  In 1956 President Dwight D. Eisenhower defeated Adlai Stevenson, a repeat of the 1952 election.  However there is definitely a different vibe to this current repeat.  In 1952 Eisenhower won in a landslide over Stevenson.  1956 was no different, an Eisenhower landslide victory.  The 2020 election was a little less than a landslide.  In the 2020 election President Biden won 306 electoral votes to Trump's 232.  In 1952 Eisenhower won 442 electoral votes and in 1956 he won 457.  Adlai Stevenson won 82 (1952) and 73 (1956).  After getting crushed in 1952 it is hard to imagine why democrats choose Stevenson as their candidate for 1956.

I am not getting into a political debate regarding these 2 current candidates.  I, like much of the country have very little enthusiasm for either.  This has started me thinking about decisions when all of the alternatives are less than ideal.  One obvious assumption for this post is that a decision is required or at least strongly encouraged.  As for our up coming presidential I do feel it is our duty to register and vote.  One could also argue that failing to vote for one candidate would bolster the chances of the other candidate.  Also I am focusing on decisions where the resulting outcomes are relatively unpredictable.  For example a medical decision has a degree of predictability to it.  A patient with a terminal illness could be deciding between two courses of action.  One would result in less pain, less discomfort but a short  life span.  Basically hospice type care.  The second option would result in a longer lifespan but more invasive and painful treatments.  This scenario would allow a person to make a rational choice based on outcomes that have a relatively high degree of certainty.

What happens after an election is anyone's guess.  Even in hind sight there is an endless barrage of analysis as to the state of the country and whether or not the newly elected administration's policy has anything to do with it.  Even if you were to look narrowly at your individual situations it can be difficult to determine if our choice of candidate was the correct one.  Unless we experience a life changing event (divorce, job loss, etc.) it is unlikely that one year after an election our life situation would be noticeably different.  As much as we would like to blame a particular administration for a specific problem it is often difficult to draw a straight line from an administrations action to a specific problem.  However many people may disagree with that sentiment.

So how does one make a decision when any of the options are less than optimal and the resulting outcomes would be difficult to ascertain?  At first one would attempt a rational approach.  This approach would have 2 paths.  One would be to analyze the options and chose the most optimal.  The other path would have us choose the lesser of the 2 evils.  Or more generally opt for the path that appears to have the least risk.  According to Dan Ariely we would this would be the more desired path.  His contention is that we have a tendency to over value things in our possession.  this concept is expanded upon in his book Predictably Irrational.  However this phenomenon is best summarized by the term "loss aversion".  As this link explains we place more value on avoiding gains than acquiring gains.  Have you ever lost a favorite scarf or pair of gloves and how the new replacement isn't quite the same?  That is lost aversion.  Ever sold a home?  It is likely that you think it is worth more than the person buying it.

Applying this to elections, loss aversion is one of the reasons it is very difficult to unseat an incumbent.  Although there are probably several other reasons for incumbent retention.  However loss aversion can be a powerful force.  Thinking about our current election I see loss aversion as a significant factor.  Just a general review of news items (mostly recalled from memory) reveals that a lot of incumbent support comes people who feel that they will experience loss if the challenger is elected.  Those that support the challenger express the view that they have already experienced or are currently experiencing loss.  these losses could be financial (job loss, savings loss, stock failures and inflation).   They could also be freedoms (abortion access for woman, gender affirming care or 2nd amendment rights).

Were is this feeling of loss coming from?  No doubt some people are struggling, but is everyone worse off.  Has every American experienced true loss?  Does the expression match reality?  The detailed analysis of that question would probably take several posts.  Dan Ariely's book mention earlier highlights how these irrational behaviors are used by advertisers (and others) to influence our decisions.  Political advertising is no different.  Campaign strategists have read the same books as advertisers.  I think a lot of the feelings of loss are influenced by campaign ads and also what the candidates say.

This site lists examples of negative campaign ads.  Reading through then they all for the most part involve some type of loss.  I remember the Willie Horton ad.  Its message was a loss of security.  democrats are just as guilty, Walter Mondale's ad claiming that if Ronald Regan was elected we should all start digging bomb shelters is an example of getting us fearful of losing security.  I just about had a cow when I saw the Daisy ad.  I was only 3 when this ad aired, which is probably why I do not recall it.  If you can think of any others add them to the comments section.

Are losses suggested by campaign ads real?  We can at least enter this election cycle with a skeptical eye.