Beauty Contest: Swimsuit vs. Talent

The Beauty Contest is More than just the Swimsuit Competition.   There is the Talent round, too.

I am sticking to my premise that the 2016 election seems crazy because it is no longer a clash of politicians.   In this media environment of news-as-ratings-specticle Trump changed the rules into a reality elimination contest, like a beauty pageant or The Apprentice.

Imagine a normal election, for example where the opponents were Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, and Paul Ryan.   There would be haggling over policies and past votes and one of them would win the primary.   Now that winner would be taking on Hillary, and the news would be about tax plans, marginal tax rates, gun regulation, health care policy changes, pre-existing medical conditions, student loan modifications, etc.  The Republican would be saying that his tax plan was better than Hillary's and that the lower taxes on the job creators would trickle down to a stronger middle class.  Hillary would say it was a giveaway to the rich.  The discussion would be about policy.   Someone would win.

An elimination contest

This election is nothing like that.  This is a reality show elimination contest.   Participants get bumped off because they lack star quality.   Trump has star quality.  He wins support by saying things that keep him in the center of attention.  (This blog gets more page views when Trump is in the headline.)

Even an elimination contest is not totally about who is the most interesting showman,  Even the Miss Universe contest has a talent division and an on-camera interview.  Trump overwhelmingly wins the audience-attention part of the competition, but Hillary has some talents.   She knows some useful skills--the survivor equivalent of knowing how to start a fire with dry sticks and no matches.   Hillary gets support from people who weight that aspect.

A reader in Portland, JF, said the contest is about the talent, not the swimsuit.

"We find ourselves in the "reality show" driven culture adrift on a sea of meaningless trivia and cat videos.  Where is the long view?  Can I find it in slogans:  "Make America Great Again!"; or "Better Together"?  The book and movie "Moneyball" looked at the short game (Hillary's promise), getting on base.  Sure the baseball owners and managers all wanted the flashy star hitter like "A rod" but the real wins came from the simple act of just getting on base, the short gain.  With Donald we are hoping for a home run every time he steps up (his history shows us where that leads - to multiple bankruptcies). No, the short grind-out game of technical perfection is boring and leaves no high drama for the spectator (media).  What reporter wants to be assigned to cover city council meetings?

Miss Universe has to be able to handle interviews, too

I know for a fact that boring competent performance is exactly what I look for in financial performance and local governance.  Boringly predictable, like a well-performing bond, or an uneventful commercial plane ride.  From my prospective, I'm voting for competence.  So it is no longer hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two horrible choices; rather it is now a simple choice proven qualities (Hillary) over some Hail Mary thrill-seeking vision (Donald)."

That is the strong case for Hillary:  voters by election day will want a predictable, reliable, essentially uneventful airplane ride.   Drawing from my 30 years as a Financial Advisor I would say that this is indeed what most people want, but not totally, and not immediately.   In a go-go environment like the late 1990s a great many people wanted in on the technology excitement.  In 2004-2007 they wanted in on the real estate excitement.   It can last for a while--certainly long enough to elect a candidate for president.   Investors go back and forth on this but most of the time Hillary represents the winning strategy: safe, not sorry.

Hillary-5% dividend

Settling for Hillary.  The best case for Hillary would be for voters to experience some sort of visible "fail" for Trump.  When everything is going great people want to get aboard.    People are thrilled on the way up, frightened on the way down.   Loss hurts about 5 times as much as gain pleases.   Thoughts turn to "safety first."   So far Trump has been able to double down on "mistakes" turning them into victories.   But mistakes are a vulnerability for him.   When Apple dropped 20% in a week I got panicky phone calls.

Safe reliable Hillary is an a frame that may work for her.   Hillary can embrace the idea that she is the less interesting candidate who loses the equivalent of the swimsuit portion of the event but wins the talent part.  Hillary is the one who can answer the interview questions and can do hard practical things.  Trump is the exciting one you cannot take your eyes off.   

In investment terms Hillary is PG&E or AT&T, utility stocks with a good dividend but companies where everyone hears some grumbles and complaints about service.  Trump is Amazon or Apple: high fliers--but volatile and risky.   A lot of people are very happy owning PG&E and ATT.

Trump--focusing on the way up and up

Hillary would be a stronger candidate if she added a little bit more "hope and change" to her message.  Even when voters are remorseful and chastened by losses most still want a tiny bit of sparkle.  They want 90% safe, but still want to dream a little.   Hillary could adjust her message to add some talk of reform and change.  She has flexibility here.

Trump, though, is stuck: he is the exciting risk candidate, period.  Trump is for thrill seekers.  He says we will win, win, win, win, win.   He talks about safety at home but he does it in the context of policies (ban Muslims, torture, deport, armed teachers, trade wars) which are described by the pundits as extreme even though they may seem reasonable to many voters.  Trump doesn't want to make America good.  He wants to make us great.

We are narrowing down to the final two contestants:  the one with talent and the one with pizazz.