Does the Dem 'shellacking" in 2010 portend the ousting of Obama in 2012?

[Torie]

Michael Barone crunches the numbers in a very nicely presented way, and thinks it might well so portend.  I will tell you what I think later.

[Jacobtm]

Presidents often win elections when their party does poorly in Congress. Presidential elections are very much 1 on 1 competitions.

The fact that they have converged with congressional votes during the last 3 elections does not mean they will stay that way. If we use the logic of looking to the past to predict the future, we would have never gotten a black President.

Obama has relatively high likability ratings, meaning that his approval ratings stay higher than those of the average president, despite the bad economy.

No one has a crystal ball, but saying that Obama will get +/-45% of the vote in 2012 because Dems got 45% in '10 is based on nothing but hope.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Presidents Dewey, Mondale, and Dole can all attest to those numbers.

[Thomas D]

Presidents Dewey, Mondale, and Dole can all attest to those numbers.

This.

[Bull Moose Base]

He cites 4 recent cases but the one he's most dismissive of- the one that doesn't fit his conclusion- is the only one analogous to Obama's re-election race: a new Democratic president loses the House in his first midterm then the Republicans aggressively clash with him.  (The two cases of a new nominee from the incumbent party running for a third term don't seem a good match.  Bush's re-election isn't great either.)  If the guy is right that voters swung back to Clinton because of playing to the middle, Obama will win easily.  But there's a good argument that it was the timing of the recovery that saved Clinton more than triangulation.  Since this recovery is weaker, Obama might be more Truman 48 than Clinton 96.  The fact that George W Bush won re-election can give each side reason for pessimism here if they want it.

[The Mikado]

Yeah, both 1994 and 1982 suggest otherwise.  It's not like 2002 ensured Bush's victory, either.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The two do not relate well - consider the state of the Senate vs the House.

What drove the huge wave in the House were very localised TP-backed campaigns - which were low-cost, locally-focused and based on the turnout of local wingnuts who generally are out with their militia or planning for the rapture when it's time to vote...

OK - that's being a little general - but the House dynamics are hugely different to the Senate dynamics... and even then the historical effect of a bad mid-term on a subsequent presidential race are low.

The real issue will be who turns out to vote in 2012 - the Democrats did so badly in 2010 in large-part due to the fact that 14million young people didn't vote... if Obama gets them out again and can avoid as little bleeding as possible from moderates, latinos and women... he SHOULD be ok.

But like most incumbent elections, the real question won't be 'are you better off than you were 4 years ago?' but 'do you trust this guy more than me?'. That's the real game in my mind.

[Lief 🗽]

I agree with his first point, and I think it's very likely that the presidential popular vote will closely match the House popular vote. But I think it's silly to use an election two years earlier to predict anything. The thing with any election analysis like this is that our sample size is so ridiculously tiny, that pointing out any sorts of trends or patterns is just a waste of time. What will happen will happen, irrespective of what happened last time or the time before (Missouri was always the bellwether state... until it wasn't).

[Torie]

"The thing with any election analysis like this is that our sample size is so ridiculously tiny, ...  ."

Lief gets the prize.  Congrats. Even a stopped clock gets it right once a day (maybe even twice!). 

[Meeker]

[The Mikado]

The voter turnout is so different between a midterm and a general, and the sort of people that vote in generals but don't vote in midterms (sadly) are likely to be disproportionately Democratic.  Think about it: black people that showed up to vote Obama in 2008 that don't have him on the ticket in 2010, students that wanted to get in Obama's pants in 2008 that weren't particularly interested in saving their newbie Congressman, etc. 

[NVGonzalez]

Presidents Dewey, Mondale, and Dole can all attest to those numbers.

This.

[TheGlobalizer]

It's merely descriptive overall political trends and the climate in 2010.

The facts on the ground are more dispositive.  I do think there's something to be said for 2010 -> 2012, but it's more about Obama's failure to change the dynamic or narrative from 2010 than anything else.  2010 was about healthcare reform, the economy, unemployment, etc. -- 2012 is looking much the same, so similar results would make some sense.

I think the 1994/1996 comparison fits well, and where Clinton moderated in response to 1994, Obama doubled down in response to 2010.  We'll see if he can change the narrative, if he won't change the approach.  I wouldn't want to be starting from where he is, since his victory last time around was boosted by lots of novelty and aspirational language which won't have nearly the same potency the second time around.

[Penelope]

Presidents Dewey, Mondale, and Dole can all attest to those numbers.

This.

[pbrower2a]

It's merely descriptive overall political trends and the climate in 2010.

The facts on the ground are more dispositive.  I do think there's something to be said for 2010 -> 2012, but it's more about Obama's failure to change the dynamic or narrative from 2010 than anything else.  2010 was about healthcare reform, the economy, unemployment, etc. -- 2012 is looking much the same, so similar results would make some sense.

I think the 1994/1996 comparison fits well, and where Clinton moderated in response to 1994, Obama doubled down in response to 2010.  We'll see if he can change the narrative, if he won't change the approach.  I wouldn't want to be starting from where he is, since his victory last time around was boosted by lots of novelty and aspirational language which won't have nearly the same potency the second time around.

This isn't 1995. The moderate wing of the Republican Party is gone because it no longer fits the fundamentalist-agrarian-corporatist GOP. The conservative wing of the Democratic Party was badly defeated in 2010.  The economy was in reasonably-good shape in 1995; it is now in execrable shape best described as a mitigation of norms from the 1930s.

2010 was either an anomaly (a transitory revival of the GOP through well-funded stealth campaigns) or a portent of a  new and successful technique against which no liberal can win except in an ultra-safe bailiwick. Nationwide demographics do not favor the GOP. The Religious Right peaked a few years ago. Hispanic voters have nothing to gain from politicians who would make drastic cuts in public services -- especially education.

[Brittain33]

Barone is good at predicting that "the people" will rise up and administer a righteous conservative smackdown to the liberal elites. When that actually happens ('02, '04, '10) he has the benefit of being right.

[Torie]

Barone is good at predicting that "the people" will rise up and administer a righteous conservative smackdown to the liberal elites. When that actually happens ('02, '04, '10) he has the benefit of being right.

Indeed, and it is odd not I guess that Barone has not bothered to comment on those annoying little depressing polls, that a clear majority of voters oppose any cuts in entitlements.  That kind of suggests to me that the olds and their enablers and fellow travelers in exchange for their own pounds of flesh may well indeed have the muscle to force up taxes to keep them alive and kicking and funded just as long  as the outer limits of medical science will allow. And just which party is more likely than not to accommodate them?

[milhouse24]

According to recent polls, such as Gallup, Obama loses to a generic GOP candidate.
In some cases he loses to Romney or its very close. 
This is very bad for an incumbent, it seems like Obama will need to pull a Truman to win this one.

[zorkpolitics]

If unemployment continues above 9% and the economic growth is anemic, 2012 could indeed lead to a relatively large defeat of Obama, possibly by as much as a 5% popular vote margin.  This would lead to the GOP gaining control of the Senate, and maintaining their control of the House.

If the economy picks up Obama should win, but with a smaller margin than 2008.

[J. J.]

It is the portent of a realignment; a portent does not necessarily mean it will happen.