The Economist has an interview with the sainted Nate Silver who points out that just because things are looking good for the Democrats right now, they shouldn't get complacent. If there's one lesson everyone should have learnt last year it's that we can't predict how the next one will go with much confidence:
The McCain campaign operated under the assumption that the political world hadn't changed since 2004—that Mr Obama couldn't turn out black voters or young voters, that swift-boating would work, that Mr Obama couldn't possibly win states like North Carolina and Indiana—and they paid a price for it. On the other hand, I think some Democrats might be a little bit complacent right now.There are a lot of things that can go wrong—both known unknowns and unknown unknowns. What if Afghanistan turns into the next Iraq? What if swine flu winds up killing several hundred thousand Americans? What if there's a nuclear exchange in Kashmir? What if there's a significant, unpredicted increase in the crime rate? Some of those things might hurt the Democrats and others might not, but there's a pretty decent chance that the core issues in 2012 will be things that we haven't even thought about yet.
Silver's hypotheses may be added to Marbury's Five to form a pretty comprehensive catalogue of possible pitfalls for Obama. Having said that, even if they all come true you'd still need a Republican party in fighting shape for it to matter, and that - added to the calibre of the incumbent - is why I think this president is such a safe bet for a second term.
Comments