Neither of these are pure costs – Obamacare buys us more health care, and military presence in Iraq buys us [mumble] – but if you think these are less (or more) efficient ways to spend money than other possible uses, then they represent ways that having one President might be better than another.
If we suppose a good president would use these trillions of dollars at least 33% more efficiently than a bad president, then this is still 0 billion in value.
Which of the candidates in this election are millennarian? The left and right both critique Hillary the same way. Nobody cares what policies he’ll implement after he does this, because his campaign is more an expression of rage at these things than anything else.
Except that this is the final problem (the proof of this is trivial and is left as exercise for the reader) so the World-Spirit becomes fully incarnate and everything is great forever. Are you saying you know better than the World-Spirit, Comrade?
So order of magnitude, having a good President rather than a bad one can be worth 0 billion.
A 1/60 million chance to create 0 billion in value is worth ,000; even the 1/1 billion chance afforded someone in a safe state is worth 0.
The paper was from the 2008 election, which was a pro-Obama landslide; since this election is closer the chance of determining it may be even higher.
The size of the US budget is about trillion, but Presidents can only affect a tiny bit of that – most of the money funds the same programs no matter who’s in charge.