Predicting the Future

Two of the New York Times' columnists came up with some interesting possibilities for what they might be writing following the next presidential election. It's not quite an exercise in prediction; neither of them goes so far as to say they think this is the result they're going to see. It's more of an exercise in explaining what the possible outcomes are, and how they might come about. Both versions have their own good points and shortcomings, of course.

The version in which President Trump wins re-election quite sensibly points out that a strong economy can cover a lot of sins. Of course, I think its brief mention that there's more to public perception of the economy than the Dow or GDP doesn't really deal with the possibility that slow wage growth or rising prices could affect people's votes. I think its suggestion that the president's supporters will use whatever successes they can find as an excuse to ignore anything the other side says about his failings is also well taken, much as I might wish it wasn't.

The version in which the president loses, among other things, makes exactly the point I mentioned above about the economy. (That is, of course, where I got that idea.) I don't think I agree with its assessment of what tactics the Democrats are likely to use; I don't think they are going to focus on corruption and ignore the rest. (I seem to be predicting the worst out of both sides today...) That said, its point about the president's popularity is also well taken.

... In the end, I think we'll just have to wait and see. It turns out I don't actually like committing to a prediction of the future all that much.