Trump and Ambitious Candidates

By Gregory Koger

I am loathe to discuss Donald Trump as if he is a real candidate, but his (ostensible) entry into the 2016 Presidential race highlights a surprising pattern: there is an overabundance of candidates, and most of them don't have a chance of winning the Presidency. This should puzzle us: why would otherwise rational people spend a year of their lives pursuing an office that they should know is unattainable? 

I begin by reviewing the field of candidates, then discuss how their actions add to political science theories about why people run for office. In a nutshell, I suggest that the next step in understanding politicians' ambitions is to identify the career, policy, and financial benefits that can come from running for office.

The Crowded Presidential Field

Presently, there are five announced Democratic candidates for President and eleven declared Republicans, with a few more Republicans considering a run (not counting amateurs who do not campaign). Here's a list of candidates that pollsters consider serious enough to ask about, as well as their current odds of victory.

Democrats	Poll Average	Nomination Probability	Nomination Probability	Poll Average	Republicans
Clinton	58.6	81%	33%	10.8	Bush
Sanders	11.6	7%	18%	10.6	Walker
Biden	11.4	5%	23%	10	Rubio
O'Malley	2	6%	2%	9.4	Carson
Webb	1.6	1%	2%	8.6	Huckabee
Chafee	0.6	*	7%	8.2	Paul
			2%	7	Cruz
The polling average is from RealClearPolitics’s average of polls from May 19 to June 14. Probability of nomination is from PredictWise, which compiles gambling odds from multiple websites and polls from Huffington Pollster. No odds are provided for candidates with a (*).			2%	4.6	Christie
			*	3.6	Trump
			2%	3.2	Perry
			0%	2.2	Santorum
			*	1.8	Fiorina
			1%	1.8	Kasich
			*	1.4	Graham
			2%	1	Jindal

As press reports have suggested, it really is a three-man race on the Republican side and a one-woman race for the Democratic nomination. Among Republicans, the only other candidate with more than a 2% chance is Rand Paul, and this observer wishes he could "short" Rand Paul. 

The classic theory of how politicians decide whether to run for office is:

R = pB - C + D

R= Reward for running for President 

pB= (probability of winning)*(Benefits of being President)

C = costs of running (time, lost income, personal money spent, offices forsaken)

D = private gains from running for office

This basic formulation, from a 1989 Banks and Kiewiet article, mimics the calculus of voter turnout from Riker and Ordeshook's 1973 book. 

The "benefit" of running for office is more or less constant: the job is the same for all, and each of these candidates values the job highly. The probability varies tremendously, though; for all but six candidates, "p" is 1% or less.  

So are all these other candidates wasting their time and money? Let us survey the explanations.

1) Ambitious Strategery

 A. Never Tell Me The Odds

OK, so the odds are long, but the prize is leadership of the most powerful country on Earth. Like the surge of people who buy lottery tickets when the payout increases, even a small chance of winning a great benefit is worth the costs. Gordon Black makes this point in his 1972 article.

Indeed, seemingly insurmountable obstacles can bring out longshot candidates. In the 1992 cycle, some strong Democratic candidates refused to challenge George H.W. Bush because his reelection was inevitable. That left room for a can't-win windbag Southern governor to accept the nomination and get creamed in the 1992 election. In this cycle, Hillary Clinton is the inevitable candidate, so other strong potential candidates avoid the contest. This leaves room for Sanders, O'Malley, Webb, and Chafee to take a shot. Their odds would be long anyway, and might actually be better with only one dominant candidate in the race. If Hillary Clinton surprises us all and becomes the new FIFA President, these four candidates will be poised to fill the vacuum.

B. In the game of thrones, you win or you run for another office

One commonly cited motivation for a low-probability Presidential run is to audition for a Vice-Presidential run. By doing so, a politician gets to display his or her speaking and fundraising skills, gets vetted by the media to avoid later debacles, and attracts a fan base. This worked for George H.W. Bush, John Edwards, and Joe Biden.

Or, candidates may be laying the groundwork for their next Presidential election. Repeat candidates are common at the Congressional level, and have a history of getting nominated among Republicans (Reagan, Bush I, Dole, McCain, Romney). 

2) Issue-Raising: "Let's give 'em somethin' to talk about"

While it may be rational for Bernie Sanders to launch a long-shot bid for victory, I suspect his real goal may be to advocate for his policy views, which are to the left of Hillary Clinton on income inequality. In order to prevent Sanders from gaining ground (and keep Elizabeth Warren from entering the race), Clinton may be forced to articulate policy positions that are clearer and more liberal than she otherwise would. 

Similarly, one of the "winners" of the 2008 Republican primary was Tom Tancredo. Tancredo ensured that a hard-line immigration skeptic would be in the Republican Presidential debates and forced every other candidate--even John McCain--to veer toward his position for fear of giving his campaign a rallying cry. Tancredo knew he would lose the nomination, but he ensured that the 2008 Republican nominee renounced his own past efforts to strike a compromise and that the 2012 Republican nominee would share his opposition to a path to citizenship.

Separately, candidates may enter (or stay in) a Presidential race to dilute support for a similar candidate who they oppose. In a thinner field, Ted Cruz could lay claim to the evangelical right, Tea Party Republicans, and be the Republican Party's first Latino nominee. I am not suggesting that Rubio, Huckabee, Paul, and Santorum are only in this race to block Cruz, but on the margins this may affect their calculus. During the age of nominating conventions, I get the impression that this sort of "blocking" candidacy was more common, often in the form of "favorite son" campaigns that kept a state from committing to a popular but suboptimal candidate.

3) "Private Consumption"

The last explanation is that candidates may derive personal benefits from running for office--the "D" term in our equation. 

A. "It's an honor just to be [self]nominated"

C'mon. We all know that Trump is just running for the attention. His wealth is partially due to the creation of an eponymous brand. Running for office gives him a chance to talk about himself, attract attention for his TV shows, and play a Neil Young song.  

Given the attention lavished on Trump this week, it's a wonder we don't have more celebrity candidates. I mean, Kim Kardashian turns 35 this year...

B. Money

Even for the non-Trumps, running for office offers a lot of financial gain outside of politics. Candidates for office can:

• Sell more books 
• Attract higher speaking fees
• Line themselves up for a gig on Fox News/MSNBC.

4) There's Something Happening Here

For what it's worth, it seems like this year's set of candidates is larger than expected. Consider the Democrats: in 2000, Al Gore was probably as inevitable as Hillary Clinton (perhaps less so) but faced a single opponent (Bill Bradley) instead of four. And the Republican field is historically large. At this point I can only speculate what has changed.

Have the outside options (books/speeches/cable TV) for ex-candidates gotten better over the years?

Has the value of Senate service decreased so that Rubio will give it up instead of pursuing a long career in the "upper body"? Rand Paul and Cruz may be able to keep their seats, but so far their behavior suggests they are more interested in using the Senate as a stepladder than learning the craft of legislation. 

Or, has the post-Citizens United campaign finance regime lowered the barrier for entry and survival for Presidential candidates, so that any politician is one multimillionaire away from a run? 

For further reading on the theory of political ambition

• Banks, Jeffrey S., and D. Roderick Kiewiet. 1989. Explaining Patterns of Candidate Competition in Congressional Elections.” American Journal of Political Science Vol. 33: 997-1015.
• Black, Gordon S. 1972. “A Theory of Political Ambition: Career Choices and the Role of Structural Incentives.” American Political Science Review Vol. 66: 144-159.
• Riker, William H., and Peter C . Ordeshook. 1973. An Introduction to Positive Political Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall. 
• Rohde, David W. 1979. “Risk-Bearing and Progressive Ambition: The Case of Members of the United States House of Representatives.” American Journal of Political Science Vol. 23: 1-26.