Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

7-Nov-12 World View -- Labor unions shut down Greece for 48 hours in anti-austerity strike

The Butterfly Effect and the presidential election

** 7-Nov-12 World View -- Labor unions shut down Greece for 48 hours in anti-austerity strike
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 07#e121107


Contents:
Labor unions shut down Greece for 48 hours in anti-austerity strike
Seven more Syrian generals defect to Turkey
The Butterfly Effect and the presidential election


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Greece, Antonis Samaras,
Syria, Turkey, Bashar al-Assad,
Generational Dynamics forecasting, Butterfly Effect,
Chaos Theory

John,

Your paragraph on chaotic versus generational predictions, a systematized prediction if you will, fits in a micro vs. macro paradym as well. But I want to ask you about a third type of prediction that you have made that doesn't fit into either of the chaotic vs. generational categories in my mind. You have often stated that you see Iran lining up with the USA, Israel, Russia and India, vs. China, Pakistan and the Arab Sunni block.

I have thought long an hard on this and don't disagree. In fact I find it prescient. But what I don't see is how generational dynamics fits into that prediction. I can see how GD is a predictor of when it might happen but not necessarily that that particular alignment will happen. I see that prediction much more in the lines of analyzing a social/religious and geopolitical/economic alignment. It is still an amazing statement to have made for as long as you have been making it and is certainly not an obvious prognosis given the current state of relations between Iran and the USA. But how do you tie it into GD other than using GD to posit potential timings for such realignments.

Predicting elections far in advance isn't possible because the parties change as the demographic changes. But the demographic changes are mostly ruled by the generational changes. So it should be possible to say an election would be more likely to be won by a candidate who promoted particular policies at a given time. Of course in many elections there is little or no actual policy difference or no policy is actually discussed, therefore this wouldn't apply to those elections.

John and OLD, last year, I had compared Obama with Buchanan and found a quote from Edward Harrison comparing him to Hoover, both one term presidents with limited capability to deal with the onrushing crisis who were replaced by Prophets who were perceived to have greater capability. Going back to 1860, when women didn't have the right to vote, had that been a constant and only men could vote last night, the Prophet Mitt Romney would have been elected by a wide margin. Instead, the less capable (in my opinion) Nomad was reelected. What would Generational Dynamics say about that, or what are any general thoughts you may have about that? Is the 19th Amendment random noise or part of a trend that changes who gets elected at similar points in the cycle?

I think you would both know my take. It would be that there are larger forces that underlie the cycles and in this case the fact that Obama was reelected has random components to it as well as nonrandom components. The random components had the impact of pushing Obama over the edge. The nonrandom components never would have given him a chance. I would view the 19th Amendment as a nonrandom event within the larger cycle.

You guys are asking me a number of really good questions about theory.

I'm going to spend a couple of days thinking about how to explain it,
and post something probably over the weekend.

If there are any other questions about forecasting theory, now is a
good time to ask them.

Thanks John, I added that second paragraph after you replied.

Have to admit, I thought the economy would have finished Obama. No other president since FDR has won with the economy in this kind of shape. However, it looks like social issues and hurricane Sandy ended up carrying the day. I knew those tactics would sway some, but I never imagined them to be that effective in persuading voters. Perhaps I give the average person too much credit.

In hindsight it makes sense that Obama would win, as he was the "kick the can" candidate. He was elected based on "hope," which is right in line with a pre-turning leader, and ran for reelection by blaming his predecessor, demonizing his opponent, promising goodies and offering baseless assurances that things were turning around.

Higgenbotham, that's a very interesting observation about the 19th amendment and I'm interested to hear what John has to say. My initial reaction would be that it's just another factor, like demographics, and that women today would be generally just as susceptible as men to a true generational wave.

From a generational perspective, perhaps it's notable that, due largely to social media, young people have been turning out in record numbers. Naturally, these voters went overwhelmingly for Obama. However, 56% of voters over 65 went for Romney despite Democratic assertions that he would cut their social security and medicare.

Still, I don't think demographics or hurricanes make much difference in a true generational wave election. In both 1932 and 1860 the nation was unquestionably in full crisis mode and both Lincoln and FDR were elected decisively. People throw around the word crisis today, but there also seems to be a mainstream consensus that we're still on the verge of recovery. Even among Republicans the complaint is often that Obama has simply slowed down the recovery.

I think Marshall has it right. The 19th amendment merely adds aadditional population that should also rightly be affected by the macro trends of the generational influences. How interesting it would be if loosing the ties that bind on any internal population group in a society were to completely alter the GD cycle. I would find that hard to believe with integral parts of a society such as women. Though I do think that occasionally separatist cultures (e.g. the Basques, the Accenese) are in a different GD timing than the rest of their countrymen.

It's a difficult question. One obvious answer would be that if the 19th Amendment didn't exist and the Democrats didn't need to cater to women, the Democrats would be better at catering to men, so Obama would have been elected anyway. That could be answered by saying if the Democrats only had to worry about catering to men, the country would already be in crisis and Obama would have lost.