Political science and political advisors

I'm on a political science softball team. We are regularly defeated by our nemeses (can you have multiple nemesis?) The RNs and the business school team. So I have a fair amount of sympathy for those who believe that its the Obama political team that OS screwing things up.

Rahm's an asshole. That was originally his appeal but is increasingly seen as a liability. Axelrod seems to believe that his polls, presumably focusing on independents, are a better arbiter of economic policymaking than the advice of economists (the economics softball team is regularly defeating us as well). The communicators can't communicate. And so on.

But articles such as this one in Politico always make me wonder why there are no political scientists in the political team of American Presidents. Harris and Vandehei write:

"on the issues voters care most about — the economy, jobs and spending — Obama has shown himself to be a big-government liberal. This reality is killing him with independent-minded voters — a trend that started one year ago and has gotten much worse of late."

There is of course no evidence for this, other than a diffuse opposition to the health care bill. And on the issue of jobs, most polls show Ameicans-and even the over-hyped independents-want the government to do much much more. But that's the fault of the journalists, who are just making shit up. My concern comes from the fact that this article is supposedly based on interviews with members of the administration, some of whom seem to believe this. And that makes me think the political team could use some political scientists.

Now don't just have political scientists; the sad results of that lineup can be seen every Tuesday and Thursday evening on B Field. But maybe throw one into the rotation, who might be able to remind the others that American presidential and congressional elections are largely driven by the fundamentals: the economy, partisan identification levels, war. That campaign effects are very marginal. And that virtually nothing inside the Washington gossip loop matters at all.*

Now this presumes that, given the lengthy campaigning season, both campaigns will effectively spend all their ammunition, canceling each other out. And this is probably true. And in midterm elections campaigns will matter more as turnout in the base is more important. So by no means get rid of the Axelrods and their ilk.

But as  Ezra Klein points out  (quoting Larry Mishel), ""At this point, the economic outcome is pretty much set.” And that probably means the election is, too."

Which is probably why political scientists rarely find employ as political advisors. Telling your boss that his loss has already been written and was written months, possibly even a year before is not if much practical help. But this is not simple economic determinism. Economic growth is in part endogenous to the political sphere. The political scientist might be of less help in September (although we do have some positive things to say about campaigns) but is necessary to be there in the February prior, hello even the prior September, to say "we need to support policies that will be leading to job growth come election time." Which is what both Brad Delong and Paul Krugman were arguing in 2009. So maybe once again the economists have defeated the political team.

*There are exceptions to this, but they largely reveal the marginal importance of campaigns: they matter only when the campaigns themselves are remarkably close. Richard Johnston has a book on the 2000 election making this case.