Obama still favored under Lichtman test

[Bo]

Okay, I think I follow you now.  We've lost this key in any case, on a true/false basis.  You are arguing that it would be better for the Republicans (in 2012) if the Democrats lose this key by a smaller degree.  Which, of course, we will try to do- to Obama's distress, by your argument.

     Pretty much. If the Republicans regain control of one or both houses of Congress, then that makes it more difficult for them to campaign against Obama's agenda, which they have had the opportunity to block for two years. They therefore cut off one of their primary plans of attack, while opening themselves up to being attacked as obstructionists.

This didnt help George H.W. Bush in 1992, when Democrats held big majorities in Congress and he still lost reelection.

It helped Truman tremendously though.

Obama wasnt half the campaigner/politician that Truman was.  The reason Obama seemed like a good campaigner in 2008 was that he was fresh and new.  Without that freshness, he looks a lot different.

I still think Obama has it in him to re-motivate his campaign supporters. Much more people were disappointed in Truman than in Obama in their first term if you look at Truman's approvals. That didn't stop Truman from energizing his base and party.

The appeal he had was lost. 

No, it isn't. His speaking ability, likability, and persona are still much more respectable than that of any of the likely nominees in 2012. Obama still has loads of likability, which equates to appeal come re-election time, as the election isn't decided by approval ratings. It's decided by campaigning.

Besides, Obama might appear kinda stale and boring to some people because he hasn't done much campaigning in the last two years. Once he gets back on the campaign trail, he'll start energizing people again.

It wont work.  People are simply tired of him.  George HW Bush was a great campaigner in 1988, yet by 1992, he was just laughed at because he was stale after four years of weak economic growth.

Bush Sr. wasn't nearly as charismatic as Obama and he won in large part because Dukakis was a poor candidate. Obama is much more inspiring, and the long-term economic outlook will probably be way more optimistic in late 2012 than in late 1992.

[Zarn]

Okay, I think I follow you now.  We've lost this key in any case, on a true/false basis.  You are arguing that it would be better for the Republicans (in 2012) if the Democrats lose this key by a smaller degree.  Which, of course, we will try to do- to Obama's distress, by your argument.

     Pretty much. If the Republicans regain control of one or both houses of Congress, then that makes it more difficult for them to campaign against Obama's agenda, which they have had the opportunity to block for two years. They therefore cut off one of their primary plans of attack, while opening themselves up to being attacked as obstructionists.

This didnt help George H.W. Bush in 1992, when Democrats held big majorities in Congress and he still lost reelection.

It helped Truman tremendously though.

Obama wasnt half the campaigner/politician that Truman was.  The reason Obama seemed like a good campaigner in 2008 was that he was fresh and new.  Without that freshness, he looks a lot different.

I still think Obama has it in him to re-motivate his campaign supporters. Much more people were disappointed in Truman than in Obama in their first term if you look at Truman's approvals. That didn't stop Truman from energizing his base and party.

The appeal he had was lost. 

No, it isn't. His speaking ability, likability, and persona are still much more respectable than that of any of the likely nominees in 2012. Obama still has loads of likability, which equates to appeal come re-election time, as the election isn't decided by approval ratings. It's decided by campaigning.

Besides, Obama might appear kinda stale and boring to some people because he hasn't done much campaigning in the last two years. Once he gets back on the campaign trail, he'll start energizing people again.

I didn't realize that he stopped campaigning.

[Mr.Phips]

Okay, I think I follow you now.  We've lost this key in any case, on a true/false basis.  You are arguing that it would be better for the Republicans (in 2012) if the Democrats lose this key by a smaller degree.  Which, of course, we will try to do- to Obama's distress, by your argument.

     Pretty much. If the Republicans regain control of one or both houses of Congress, then that makes it more difficult for them to campaign against Obama's agenda, which they have had the opportunity to block for two years. They therefore cut off one of their primary plans of attack, while opening themselves up to being attacked as obstructionists.

This didnt help George H.W. Bush in 1992, when Democrats held big majorities in Congress and he still lost reelection.

It helped Truman tremendously though.

Obama wasnt half the campaigner/politician that Truman was.  The reason Obama seemed like a good campaigner in 2008 was that he was fresh and new.  Without that freshness, he looks a lot different.

I still think Obama has it in him to re-motivate his campaign supporters. Much more people were disappointed in Truman than in Obama in their first term if you look at Truman's approvals. That didn't stop Truman from energizing his base and party.

The appeal he had was lost. 

No, it isn't. His speaking ability, likability, and persona are still much more respectable than that of any of the likely nominees in 2012. Obama still has loads of likability, which equates to appeal come re-election time, as the election isn't decided by approval ratings. It's decided by campaigning.

Besides, Obama might appear kinda stale and boring to some people because he hasn't done much campaigning in the last two years. Once he gets back on the campaign trail, he'll start energizing people again.

It wont work.  People are simply tired of him.  George HW Bush was a great campaigner in 1988, yet by 1992, he was just laughed at because he was stale after four years of weak economic growth.

Bush Sr. wasn't nearly as charismatic as Obama and he won in large part because Dukakis was a poor candidate. Obama is much more inspiring, and the long-term economic outlook will probably be way more optimistic in late 2012 than in late 1992.

Bush won in 1988 because that year was pretty much the peak of economic activity from 1985 to 1989.  Had the election been held a year or two later, Bush probably would have lost even to Dukakis.

Obama was not that good of a campaigner in 2008.  He won mostly because the unemployment rate rose from 4.5% in mid 2007 to 6.2% by fall 2008. 

If unemployment is still around 9% by early 2012, all of the campaigning in the world isnt going to make him look good. 

[Bull Moose Base]

I went to see Bush Sr. speak in 88 when I was still a teenager and hadn't yet woken up to the Republican Party's game.  He was OK; nothing special.  Obama is obviously in a different league as a campaigner, a once in a generation talent.  While any Democrat should have won in 2008, slaying Hillary was evidence of his talent.  In any case, yes, Bush Sr lost because he took over an alright economy and left it in worse shape.  Obama took over with an economy in free fall and we'll see where it is in 2+ years.

[Bo]

Okay, I think I follow you now.  We've lost this key in any case, on a true/false basis.  You are arguing that it would be better for the Republicans (in 2012) if the Democrats lose this key by a smaller degree.  Which, of course, we will try to do- to Obama's distress, by your argument.

     Pretty much. If the Republicans regain control of one or both houses of Congress, then that makes it more difficult for them to campaign against Obama's agenda, which they have had the opportunity to block for two years. They therefore cut off one of their primary plans of attack, while opening themselves up to being attacked as obstructionists.

This didnt help George H.W. Bush in 1992, when Democrats held big majorities in Congress and he still lost reelection.

It helped Truman tremendously though.

Obama wasnt half the campaigner/politician that Truman was.  The reason Obama seemed like a good campaigner in 2008 was that he was fresh and new.  Without that freshness, he looks a lot different.

I still think Obama has it in him to re-motivate his campaign supporters. Much more people were disappointed in Truman than in Obama in their first term if you look at Truman's approvals. That didn't stop Truman from energizing his base and party.

The appeal he had was lost. 

No, it isn't. His speaking ability, likability, and persona are still much more respectable than that of any of the likely nominees in 2012. Obama still has loads of likability, which equates to appeal come re-election time, as the election isn't decided by approval ratings. It's decided by campaigning.

Besides, Obama might appear kinda stale and boring to some people because he hasn't done much campaigning in the last two years. Once he gets back on the campaign trail, he'll start energizing people again.

It wont work.  People are simply tired of him.  George HW Bush was a great campaigner in 1988, yet by 1992, he was just laughed at because he was stale after four years of weak economic growth.

Bush Sr. wasn't nearly as charismatic as Obama and he won in large part because Dukakis was a poor candidate. Obama is much more inspiring, and the long-term economic outlook will probably be way more optimistic in late 2012 than in late 1992.

Bush won in 1988 because that year was pretty much the peak of economic activity from 1985 to 1989.  Had the election been held a year or two later, Bush probably would have lost even to Dukakis.

Obama was not that good of a campaigner in 2008.  He won mostly because the unemployment rate rose from 4.5% in mid 2007 to 6.2% by fall 2008. 

If unemployment is still around 9% by early 2012, all of the campaigning in the world isnt going to make him look good. 

The economy obviously helped Bush Sr. and Obama win as well, but both were also greatly helped by the ineptitude of their opponents. And the long-term economic outlook did look very pessimistic in 1992. Unemployment only barely began decreasing by Election Day. Even if unemployment is 8.5% in late 2012, that will still be a significant decrease from late 2009 and thus more people are going to be noticing and feeling the recovery, which should greatly help Obama. And you might not remember, but Obama did energize huge amounts of people in 2008. Bush Sr. never did that.

[Penelope]

Okay, I think I follow you now.  We've lost this key in any case, on a true/false basis.  You are arguing that it would be better for the Republicans (in 2012) if the Democrats lose this key by a smaller degree.  Which, of course, we will try to do- to Obama's distress, by your argument.

     Pretty much. If the Republicans regain control of one or both houses of Congress, then that makes it more difficult for them to campaign against Obama's agenda, which they have had the opportunity to block for two years. They therefore cut off one of their primary plans of attack, while opening themselves up to being attacked as obstructionists.

This didnt help George H.W. Bush in 1992, when Democrats held big majorities in Congress and he still lost reelection.

It helped Truman tremendously though.

Obama wasnt half the campaigner/politician that Truman was.  The reason Obama seemed like a good campaigner in 2008 was that he was fresh and new.  Without that freshness, he looks a lot different.

I still think Obama has it in him to re-motivate his campaign supporters. Much more people were disappointed in Truman than in Obama in their first term if you look at Truman's approvals. That didn't stop Truman from energizing his base and party.

The appeal he had was lost. 

No, it isn't. His speaking ability, likability, and persona are still much more respectable than that of any of the likely nominees in 2012. Obama still has loads of likability, which equates to appeal come re-election time, as the election isn't decided by approval ratings. It's decided by campaigning.

Besides, Obama might appear kinda stale and boring to some people because he hasn't done much campaigning in the last two years. Once he gets back on the campaign trail, he'll start energizing people again.

It wont work.  People are simply tired of him.  George HW Bush was a great campaigner in 1988, yet by 1992, he was just laughed at because he was stale after four years of weak economic growth.

Bush Sr. wasn't nearly as charismatic as Obama and he won in large part because Dukakis was a poor candidate. Obama is much more inspiring, and the long-term economic outlook will probably be way more optimistic in late 2012 than in late 1992.

Bush won in 1988 because that year was pretty much the peak of economic activity from 1985 to 1989.  Had the election been held a year or two later, Bush probably would have lost even to Dukakis.

Obama was not that good of a campaigner in 2008.  He won mostly because the unemployment rate rose from 4.5% in mid 2007 to 6.2% by fall 2008. 

If unemployment is still around 9% by early 2012, all of the campaigning in the world isnt going to make him look good. 

You are now my favorite comedian.

[Mr.Phips]

Okay, I think I follow you now.  We've lost this key in any case, on a true/false basis.  You are arguing that it would be better for the Republicans (in 2012) if the Democrats lose this key by a smaller degree.  Which, of course, we will try to do- to Obama's distress, by your argument.

     Pretty much. If the Republicans regain control of one or both houses of Congress, then that makes it more difficult for them to campaign against Obama's agenda, which they have had the opportunity to block for two years. They therefore cut off one of their primary plans of attack, while opening themselves up to being attacked as obstructionists.

This didnt help George H.W. Bush in 1992, when Democrats held big majorities in Congress and he still lost reelection.

It helped Truman tremendously though.

Obama wasnt half the campaigner/politician that Truman was.  The reason Obama seemed like a good campaigner in 2008 was that he was fresh and new.  Without that freshness, he looks a lot different.

I still think Obama has it in him to re-motivate his campaign supporters. Much more people were disappointed in Truman than in Obama in their first term if you look at Truman's approvals. That didn't stop Truman from energizing his base and party.

The appeal he had was lost. 

No, it isn't. His speaking ability, likability, and persona are still much more respectable than that of any of the likely nominees in 2012. Obama still has loads of likability, which equates to appeal come re-election time, as the election isn't decided by approval ratings. It's decided by campaigning.

Besides, Obama might appear kinda stale and boring to some people because he hasn't done much campaigning in the last two years. Once he gets back on the campaign trail, he'll start energizing people again.

It wont work.  People are simply tired of him.  George HW Bush was a great campaigner in 1988, yet by 1992, he was just laughed at because he was stale after four years of weak economic growth.

Bush Sr. wasn't nearly as charismatic as Obama and he won in large part because Dukakis was a poor candidate. Obama is much more inspiring, and the long-term economic outlook will probably be way more optimistic in late 2012 than in late 1992.

Bush won in 1988 because that year was pretty much the peak of economic activity from 1985 to 1989.  Had the election been held a year or two later, Bush probably would have lost even to Dukakis.

Obama was not that good of a campaigner in 2008.  He won mostly because the unemployment rate rose from 4.5% in mid 2007 to 6.2% by fall 2008. 

If unemployment is still around 9% by early 2012, all of the campaigning in the world isnt going to make him look good. 

The economy obviously helped Bush Sr. and Obama win as well, but both were also greatly helped by the ineptitude of their opponents. And the long-term economic outlook did look very pessimistic in 1992. Unemployment only barely began decreasing by Election Day. Even if unemployment is 8.5% in late 2012, that will still be a significant decrease from late 2009 and thus more people are going to be noticing and feeling the recovery, which should greatly help Obama. And you might not remember, but Obama did energize huge amounts of people in 2008. Bush Sr. never did that.

The rate has fallen from 10.1% to 9.6% now and people are even more angrier than then.  Unemployment has got to get near the 7.7% it was in January 2008 for Obama to get reelected.  8.5% is too high.  You can be sure Republican candidates will be out with their charts showing where unemployment was when Obama came in and where it is in 2012 if it is higher and they will also point out that he promised unemployment wouldnt go over 8%. 

[pbrower2a]

We are going to see whether the GOP/Tea Party  can preserve its state-within-a-state shadow government and keep using its favorite media to keep hammering at President Obama and every Democrat.

These fellows are experts at totalitarian-style propaganda, and they never let up.  

[Bo]

Okay, I think I follow you now.  We've lost this key in any case, on a true/false basis.  You are arguing that it would be better for the Republicans (in 2012) if the Democrats lose this key by a smaller degree.  Which, of course, we will try to do- to Obama's distress, by your argument.

     Pretty much. If the Republicans regain control of one or both houses of Congress, then that makes it more difficult for them to campaign against Obama's agenda, which they have had the opportunity to block for two years. They therefore cut off one of their primary plans of attack, while opening themselves up to being attacked as obstructionists.

This didnt help George H.W. Bush in 1992, when Democrats held big majorities in Congress and he still lost reelection.

It helped Truman tremendously though.

Obama wasnt half the campaigner/politician that Truman was.  The reason Obama seemed like a good campaigner in 2008 was that he was fresh and new.  Without that freshness, he looks a lot different.

I still think Obama has it in him to re-motivate his campaign supporters. Much more people were disappointed in Truman than in Obama in their first term if you look at Truman's approvals. That didn't stop Truman from energizing his base and party.

The appeal he had was lost. 

No, it isn't. His speaking ability, likability, and persona are still much more respectable than that of any of the likely nominees in 2012. Obama still has loads of likability, which equates to appeal come re-election time, as the election isn't decided by approval ratings. It's decided by campaigning.

Besides, Obama might appear kinda stale and boring to some people because he hasn't done much campaigning in the last two years. Once he gets back on the campaign trail, he'll start energizing people again.

It wont work.  People are simply tired of him.  George HW Bush was a great campaigner in 1988, yet by 1992, he was just laughed at because he was stale after four years of weak economic growth.

Bush Sr. wasn't nearly as charismatic as Obama and he won in large part because Dukakis was a poor candidate. Obama is much more inspiring, and the long-term economic outlook will probably be way more optimistic in late 2012 than in late 1992.

Bush won in 1988 because that year was pretty much the peak of economic activity from 1985 to 1989.  Had the election been held a year or two later, Bush probably would have lost even to Dukakis.

Obama was not that good of a campaigner in 2008.  He won mostly because the unemployment rate rose from 4.5% in mid 2007 to 6.2% by fall 2008. 

If unemployment is still around 9% by early 2012, all of the campaigning in the world isnt going to make him look good. 

The economy obviously helped Bush Sr. and Obama win as well, but both were also greatly helped by the ineptitude of their opponents. And the long-term economic outlook did look very pessimistic in 1992. Unemployment only barely began decreasing by Election Day. Even if unemployment is 8.5% in late 2012, that will still be a significant decrease from late 2009 and thus more people are going to be noticing and feeling the recovery, which should greatly help Obama. And you might not remember, but Obama did energize huge amounts of people in 2008. Bush Sr. never did that.

The rate has fallen from 10.1% to 9.6% now and people are even more angrier than then.  Unemployment has got to get near the 7.7% it was in January 2008 for Obama to get reelected.  8.5% is too high.  You can be sure Republican candidates will be out with their charts showing where unemployment was when Obama came in and where it is in 2012 if it is higher and they will also point out that he promised unemployment wouldnt go over 8%. 

If the GOP nominates someone inept like Palin, then Obama could easily win with 8.5% unemployment. And even if unemployment will be high in November 2012 (higher than in January 2009), many people could still give Obama the benefit of the doubt and reelect him if they feel that their own economic situations are improving. And I don't think too many voters care that much about Obama's 2009 predictions. Bush also overestimated how good the economy will be in 2002 and 2003. No one seemed to blame him.

[Mr.Phips]

Okay, I think I follow you now.  We've lost this key in any case, on a true/false basis.  You are arguing that it would be better for the Republicans (in 2012) if the Democrats lose this key by a smaller degree.  Which, of course, we will try to do- to Obama's distress, by your argument.

     Pretty much. If the Republicans regain control of one or both houses of Congress, then that makes it more difficult for them to campaign against Obama's agenda, which they have had the opportunity to block for two years. They therefore cut off one of their primary plans of attack, while opening themselves up to being attacked as obstructionists.

This didnt help George H.W. Bush in 1992, when Democrats held big majorities in Congress and he still lost reelection.

It helped Truman tremendously though.

Obama wasnt half the campaigner/politician that Truman was.  The reason Obama seemed like a good campaigner in 2008 was that he was fresh and new.  Without that freshness, he looks a lot different.

I still think Obama has it in him to re-motivate his campaign supporters. Much more people were disappointed in Truman than in Obama in their first term if you look at Truman's approvals. That didn't stop Truman from energizing his base and party.

The appeal he had was lost. 

No, it isn't. His speaking ability, likability, and persona are still much more respectable than that of any of the likely nominees in 2012. Obama still has loads of likability, which equates to appeal come re-election time, as the election isn't decided by approval ratings. It's decided by campaigning.

Besides, Obama might appear kinda stale and boring to some people because he hasn't done much campaigning in the last two years. Once he gets back on the campaign trail, he'll start energizing people again.

It wont work.  People are simply tired of him.  George HW Bush was a great campaigner in 1988, yet by 1992, he was just laughed at because he was stale after four years of weak economic growth.

Bush Sr. wasn't nearly as charismatic as Obama and he won in large part because Dukakis was a poor candidate. Obama is much more inspiring, and the long-term economic outlook will probably be way more optimistic in late 2012 than in late 1992.

Bush won in 1988 because that year was pretty much the peak of economic activity from 1985 to 1989.  Had the election been held a year or two later, Bush probably would have lost even to Dukakis.

Obama was not that good of a campaigner in 2008.  He won mostly because the unemployment rate rose from 4.5% in mid 2007 to 6.2% by fall 2008. 

If unemployment is still around 9% by early 2012, all of the campaigning in the world isnt going to make him look good. 

The economy obviously helped Bush Sr. and Obama win as well, but both were also greatly helped by the ineptitude of their opponents. And the long-term economic outlook did look very pessimistic in 1992. Unemployment only barely began decreasing by Election Day. Even if unemployment is 8.5% in late 2012, that will still be a significant decrease from late 2009 and thus more people are going to be noticing and feeling the recovery, which should greatly help Obama. And you might not remember, but Obama did energize huge amounts of people in 2008. Bush Sr. never did that.

The rate has fallen from 10.1% to 9.6% now and people are even more angrier than then.  Unemployment has got to get near the 7.7% it was in January 2008 for Obama to get reelected.  8.5% is too high.  You can be sure Republican candidates will be out with their charts showing where unemployment was when Obama came in and where it is in 2012 if it is higher and they will also point out that he promised unemployment wouldnt go over 8%. 

If the GOP nominates someone inept like Palin, then Obama could easily win with 8.5% unemployment. And even if unemployment will be high in November 2012 (higher than in January 2009), many people could still give Obama the benefit of the doubt and reelect him if they feel that their own economic situations are improving. And I don't think too many voters care that much about Obama's 2009 predictions. Bush also overestimated how good the economy will be in 2002 and 2003. No one seemed to blame him.

Keep in mind that it usually takes a year or two after unemployment starts falling for significant disposable income growth to kick in.  Even though unemployment fell significantly in 1993 and 1994, disposable income growth was still very weak until unemployment started bumping against the "normal" 5.3% unemployment rate in 1996.