You Cannot Win An Election With Strong Disapprovals Like This

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

I don't understand bringing up approval ratings this earlier when Reagan had low approval ratings the year before reelection.

Anyone know the approval ratings of
George H.W. Bush
Bill Clinton
George W Bush

At this time before their reelection?

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

I don't understand bringing up approval ratings this earlier when Reagan had low approval ratings the year before reelection.

Anyone know the approval ratings of
George H.W. Bush
Bill Clinton
George W Bush

At this time before their reelection?

A few key things about that though:
1) Reagan still had higher approval ratings(mid to high 40s not low 40s, high 30s)
2) Reagan didn't have close to the number of strong disapprovals that Obama had nor do I think that any president has going for reelection
3) Reagan's economy was already improving considerably at this point and was booming by the summer of the election. No reasonable economist is predicting much of an improvement by next November if at all(and some are projecting it to get worse).

It is easy to make that statement without the numbers, which is what I asked.  Not just for Reagan but for the other recent Presidents as well.  

So does anyone have some real numbers for the past few Presidents at this time in their Presidency?

Plus, Obama obviously doesn't need the kind of reelection Reagan or Clinton had.  Like all candidates he only needs 270 electoral votes

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Well I read Reagan's numbers at about this time in the cycle about a week ago. So what I posted was accurate.

I'm now debating if I want to spend the next half hour pulling up all those old numbers again for you.

I'm currently splitting my time between reading a few articles, following up on this thread, I have some phone calls to make, etc.

Maybe a little later.

If you've seen them recently then I don't doubt their legitimacy.  Plus I just remembered that GallUp has a President approval comparison on their website and it shows exactly what you said, that Reagan (and also Clinton) were only a few points above Obama, and that is despite the poor economic conditions right now.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

If you've seen them recently then I don't doubt their legitimacy.  Plus I just remembered that GallUp has a President approval comparison on their website and it shows exactly what you said, that Reagan (and also Clinton) were only a few points above Obama, and that is despite the poor economic conditions right now.

 

...and Reagan and Clinto both had strong tails winds to sustain their upward momentum...while Obama is facing galeforce head winds that are about to become hurricane force...

Which is what makes Obama's current ratings all the more impressive, people aren't expecting things to get better anytime soon and yet he is still in the 40s

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

If you've seen them recently then I don't doubt their legitimacy.  Plus I just remembered that GallUp has a President approval comparison on their website and it shows exactly what you said, that Reagan (and also Clinton) were only a few points above Obama, and that is despite the poor economic conditions right now.

 

...and Reagan and Clinto both had strong tails winds to sustain their upward momentum...while Obama is facing galeforce head winds that are about to become hurricane force...

Which is what makes Obama's current ratings all the more impressive, people aren't expecting things to get better anytime soon and yet he is still in the 40s

I can assure they are much, much worse than in 83 or 95 and getting worse. The strong disapproval vs. strong approval index is at a level never seen by pollsters in any reelection since they started polling. The enthusiasm gap is atrocious. The economic approval/disapproval is also in the proverbial toilet. Trust me as unemployment starts to rise again he'll be retesting new lows into the mid 30s. This is just the calm before the storm.

And again keep in mind that both Reagan and Clinton had huge surges in their approval ratings because of great economic situations during the actual elections. If there approvals were actually at the mid 40s during reelection they probably would have lost. Clinton definitely, Reagan possibly. Obama's approvals aren't getting better by next Nov. I can assure you of that.

It's good that you have that time machine to see what November 2012 is going to be like.  Although I do understand the desire of conservatives to see unemployment rise

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

If you've seen them recently then I don't doubt their legitimacy.  Plus I just remembered that GallUp has a President approval comparison on their website and it shows exactly what you said, that Reagan (and also Clinton) were only a few points above Obama, and that is despite the poor economic conditions right now.

 

...and Reagan and Clinto both had strong tails winds to sustain their upward momentum...while Obama is facing galeforce head winds that are about to become hurricane force...

Which is what makes Obama's current ratings all the more impressive, people aren't expecting things to get better anytime soon and yet he is still in the 40s

I can assure they are much, much worse than in 83 or 95 and getting worse. The strong disapproval vs. strong approval index is at a level never seen by pollsters in any reelection since they started polling. The enthusiasm gap is atrocious. The economic approval/disapproval is also in the proverbial toilet. Trust me as unemployment starts to rise again he'll be retesting new lows into the mid 30s. This is just the calm before the storm.

And again keep in mind that both Reagan and Clinton had huge surges in their approval ratings because of great economic situations during the actual elections. If there approvals were actually at the mid 40s during reelection they probably would have lost. Clinton definitely, Reagan possibly. Obama's approvals aren't getting better by next Nov. I can assure you of that.

It's good that you have that time machine to see what November 2012 is going to be like.  Although I do understand the desire of conservatives to see unemployment rise

Maybe its because I'm in Finance and its my job to determine the odds of different scenario's you thought about that?

Good for you.  I'm unemployed and recognize that the conservative way of job creating doesn't work, if it did Bush's economy would have been a lot different.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

I don't understand bringing up approval ratings this earlier when Reagan had low approval ratings the year before reelection.

Anyone know the approval ratings of
George H.W. Bush
Bill Clinton
George W Bush

At this time before their reelection?

Gallup:

Reagan 47%
GHW Bush 64%
Clinton 48%
GW Bush 55%

Reagan and Clinton were coming off their lows, which were just after the midterms IIRC. They would both hit 50% the following month - Reagan in response to Grenada, Clinton in reaction to the gov't shutdown. Bush 41 was coming down from 91% after the Gulf War, and would start his downward spiral around late Oct./early Nov. as the bad economy came into focus more. Bush 43 was declining on bad Iraq news, and would stabilize in the mid to high forties around the time of the Dem. primaries.

Yeah I did find this after asking, but thanks for posting it

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

It's good that you have that time machine to see what November 2012 is going to be like.  Although I do understand the desire of conservatives to see unemployment rise

Maybe its because I'm in Finance and its my job to determine the odds of different scenario's you thought about that?

Good for you.  I'm unemployed and recognize that the conservative way of job creating doesn't work, if it did Bush's economy would have been a lot different.

Well you asked!      Really you sure about that?

Sounds like a rhetorical question; also I didn't ask you anything.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

It's good that you have that time machine to see what November 2012 is going to be like.  Although I do understand the desire of conservatives to see unemployment rise

Maybe its because I'm in Finance and its my job to determine the odds of different scenario's you thought about that?

Good for you.  I'm unemployed and recognize that the conservative way of job creating doesn't work, if it did Bush's economy would have been a lot different.

Well you asked!      Really you sure about that?

Sounds like a rhetorical question; also I didn't ask you anything.

Fine sorry, you mockingly challenged me.

And I was just following up on your unbelievably vague statement, "and recognize that the conservative way of job creating doesn't work, if it did Bush's economy would have been a lot different." with a vague question. Because how else do you answer a vague statement like that?

It's not a vague state.  The conservatives have been talking about how any increase in the top income tax brackets will hinder or stop job creation in its entirety, it is also referred to as socialism/fascism/communism/etc.  All this while simultaneously ignoring the better economy during Clinton than Bush or Obama with the higher taxes and that America was also not a socialist/fascist/communist/etc country under Truman/Eisenhower/Kennedy/etc

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

I'm unemployed and recognize that the conservative way of job creating doesn't work, if it did Bush's economy would have been a lot different.

ok, now I'm a little miffed...what are you trying to convince me of, exactly?  That government policy should be liberal enough to transform wasting-time-on-an-internet-forum-discussing-politics into a meaningful career path for you?

I sincerely hope my taxes aren't paying for your 267 posts on this forum in the last 2 months, cause if so, I sure didn't get my tax money's worth.

No I'm not on unemployment.  Sorry to burst your bubble but I'm not like Joe the Plumber and other conservative hypocrites

I'm getting one soon, just had a great interview a few days ago

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

It's not a vague state.  The conservatives have been talking about how any increase in the top income tax brackets will hinder or stop job creation in its entirety, it is also referred to as socialism/fascism/communism/etc.  All this while simultaneously ignoring the better economy during Clinton than Bush or Obama with the higher taxes and that America was also not a socialist/fascist/communist/etc country under Truman/Eisenhower/Kennedy/etc

Well you see that is more specific.

TXMichael while you seem pretty convinced, you also appear to be a pretty reasonable guy. So would you mind participating in a little exercise on here?

I'm completely open to voting for a Republican.  The problem is they are too conservative now.  That's why I tend to reference conservatives on policy issues instead of Republicans.

With the advent of the tea party most of the Republicans I like are now considered to be an anathema to the conservative base.  Such as Lugar, he is a real leader and I hope he wins reelection.  I'm sure there are plenty of Democratic Senators the Republicans like even though they don't necessarily reflect their views.

Edit:  Thanks for the luck

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

It's not a vague state.  The conservatives have been talking about how any increase in the top income tax brackets will hinder or stop job creation in its entirety, it is also referred to as socialism/fascism/communism/etc.  All this while simultaneously ignoring the better economy during Clinton than Bush or Obama with the higher taxes and that America was also not a socialist/fascist/communist/etc country under Truman/Eisenhower/Kennedy/etc

Well you see that is more specific.

TXMichael while you seem pretty convinced, you also appear to be a pretty reasonable guy. So would you mind participating in a little exercise on here?

I'm completely open to voting for a Republican.  The problem is they are too conservative now.  That's why I tend to reference conservatives on policy issues instead of Republicans.

With the advent of the tea party most of the Republicans I like are now considered to be an anathema to the conservative base.  Such as Lugar, he is a real leader and I hope he wins reelection.  I'm sure there are plenty of Democratic Senators the Republicans like even though they don't necessarily reflect their views.

Edit:  Thanks for the luck

By the way, by "an exercise" I was referring to a small set of questions on policy not whether or not you were open to voting Republican. Up for it.

What like a questionnaire on policy?  Some sort of formal debate or something?

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

I'd rather just let discussions on policy just sprout up organically.  I've received too many phone calls from political parties and special interest groups asking those sorts of questions

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

I'd rather just let discussions on policy just sprout up organically.  I've received too many phone calls from political parties and special interest groups asking those sorts of questions

So I take that is a no? Man I thought you were open minded.

I've gone through enough of those questionnaires with loaded questions to want to do them for fun.  The most recent was a phone questionnaire by some conservative energy group supporting an oil pipeline from Canada down to Texas

"Do you think gas prices are too high?"
"Do you want more jobs in the U.S.?"

"Congrats!  Support the new pipeline to have more jobs and lower gasoline prices, add more conservative talking points, Democrats want high gas prices, add more conservative talking points."

I don't like those sorts of things on either side, tough luck

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

I've gone through enough of those questionnaires with loaded questions to want to do them for fun.  The most recent was a phone questionnaire by some conservative energy group supporting an oil pipeline from Canada down to Texas

"Do you think gas prices are too high?"
"Do you want more jobs in the U.S.?"

"Congrats!  Support the new pipeline to have more jobs and lower gasoline prices, add more conservative talking points, Democrats want high gas prices, add more conservative talking points."

I don't like those sorts of things on either side, tough luck

That's not the type of questions I would be asking you.

Do you really think I was born yesterday?  Hah!

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

What a shame. Don't ever tell me its the Dem activists that are the opened minded ones out there. They're always petrified of ever doubting what they believe so they never put themselves out there.

Its quite sad really.

I have Republicans in my family who also don't like to answer those loaded questionnaires.  How do you think I get a hold of them?  One of my family members doesn't want them so I asked if I could have them.  

Not a question of doubt, I've simply read too many GOP questionnaires to know exactly where you are coming from.  They lack any true intellectual rigor (same with the ones from the Democratic leaning groups)

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

What a shame. Don't ever tell me its the Dem activists that are the opened minded ones out there. They're always petrified of ever doubting what they believe so they never put themselves out there.

Its quite sad really.

I have Republicans in my family who also don't like to answer those loaded questionnaires.  How do you think I get a hold of them?  One of my family members doesn't want them so I asked if I could have them.  

Not a question of doubt, I've simply read too many GOP questionnaires to know exactly where you are coming from.  They lack any true intellectual rigor (same with the ones from the Democratic leaning groups)

I know what a questionnaire is. I'm not asking you a questionnaire. As I said before its a small "exercise".

Example of an exercise: If I wanted to demonstrate fractional reserve banking to someone he would start with $1,000 in play money he deposits in me the bank, I loan guy B $900 and he buys something who then deposits it back, then to guy A again for $8,100, etc.

That would be an example of an exercise. I wanted to do one with you that was only a couple questions long and pretty easy to do. But I guess you don't want to.

For the last time, I'm not playing games of someone who has a blatant political ulterior motive no matter what you want to call it, Savvy?

If you want to make a point just say it.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

For the last time, I'm not playing games of someone who has a blatant political ulterior motive no matter what you want to call it, Savvy?

Fair enough. But I'll just repeat the fact that its clearly the Dem activists that don't have an open mind to anything that might put their own beliefs in doubt.

If someone offered this to me, I would take it every time because
A) I have my confidence in my own knowledge and ability to navigate a false assumption that placed in front of me
B) If I was actually wrong about something I would want to know. My allegiance is to the truth not my own party. Yet so many fail to grasp that concept.

If I were to participate in an "exercise" as you call it which wasn't going to have some sort of political bias in it then I would be all for it.

Not indulging your games doesn't mean I'm close minded, it just means I'm not stupid enough to play them

Nice try though   I'm sure it has worked before

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

For the last time, I'm not playing games of someone who has a blatant political ulterior motive no matter what you want to call it, Savvy?

Fair enough. But I'll just repeat the fact that its clearly the Dem activists that don't have an open mind to anything that might put their own beliefs in doubt.

If someone offered this to me, I would take it every time because
A) I have my confidence in my own knowledge and ability to navigate a false assumption that placed in front of me
B) If I was actually wrong about something I would want to know. My allegiance is to the truth not my own party. Yet so many fail to grasp that concept.

If I were to participate in an "exercise" as you call it which wasn't going to have some sort of political bias in it then I would be all for it.

Not indulging your games doesn't mean I'm close minded, it just means I'm not stupid enough to play them

Nice try though   I'm sure it has worked before

Alright buddy, sure!!!

If you had a real point with your game you could have made it.  Not with a game, you could just say it straight up.  Having to hide it shows that it is nothing more than a blatantly partisan exercise. 

You were called out, tough luck. 

I'm all ears if you want to make your point, but don't hide it.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

If you had a real point with your game you could have made it.  Not with a game, you could just say it straight up.  Having to hide it shows that it is nothing more than a blatantly partisan exercise. 

You were called out, tough luck. 

I'm all ears if you want to make your point, but don't hide it.

Alright TXMichael I missed this post before. I'll just run ahead with it. Again its quite simple.

First, I'm going to operate under the assumption(I was going to ask you this first before) that you are in fact a supporter of government expenditure to boost jobs(stimulus). If you are in fact not a supporter of this then feel free to let me know and this thing becomes a mute point.

But question number 1:

Given the choice between the government spending 100% of the cost of hiring a worker for beneficial project

vs.

It spending 80% of the cost and a private investor kicked in 20% of the cost for the same project because they agreed with it being done

Which would you choose?

In the first case if it was a job paying $50k the government paid out all of the $50k. In the 2nd case the government would save $10k because of the investors money and us taxpayers would only have to shoulder the $40k.

So which one would you prefer?

In this scenario I have no preference either way and with both I'd be fine.  I have no problems with PPP

Skip the details and get to the point.  What is your point, you are clearly trying to make one.  Either make your point or I'm done with you.  We've been going over back and forth all day and I just want to hear your point.

What is it?

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

In this scenario I have no preference either way and with both I'd be fine.  I have no problems with PPP

Skip the details and get to the point.  What is your point, you are clearly trying to make one.  Either make your point or I'm done with you.  We've been going over back and forth all day and I just want to hear your point.

What is it?

So you wouldn't want the government to save the extra $10k?

And what do you mean by PPP?

Public Private Partnerships

In Dallas one of the commuter rail lines that has been proposed has had an alternative funding solution presented as a PPP because the transit agency doesn't have the funds via taxes alone to construct it.  If that ever moves forward I would presume that at least some people would have some percentage of the cost of their employment borne by the tax payers and some by whatever private entity they go with.  I don't even know if there is a full proposal.  However DART (the transit authority for most of Dallas County) simply doesn't have the money to move forward without some sort of external money source such as a grant from the federal government or as part of a PPP.

If there are no private sources of money - the government foots the entire bill
If the government can't afford it alone - go with the private source along with the the government
If neither can afford it and it is a critical project then it would probably go on the national debt
If the private company can afford it and if the government can then I really have no preference, if I were a Representative I would vote yes on both in the hope that at least one gets passed



Now the point must exist. 

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

In this scenario I have no preference either way and with both I'd be fine.  I have no problems with PPP

Skip the details and get to the point.  What is your point, you are clearly trying to make one.  Either make your point or I'm done with you.  We've been going over back and forth all day and I just want to hear your point.

What is it?

So you wouldn't want the government to save the extra $10k?

And what do you mean by PPP?

Public Private Partnerships

In Dallas one of the commuter rail lines that has been proposed has had an alternative funding solution presented as a PPP because the transit agency doesn't have the funds via taxes alone to construct it.  If that ever moves forward I would presume that at least some people would have some percentage of the cost of their employment borne by the tax payers and some by whatever private entity they go with.  I don't even know if there is a full proposal.  However DART (the transit authority for most of Dallas County) simply doesn't have the money to move forward without some sort of external money source such as a grant from the federal government or as part of a PPP.

If there are no private sources of money - the government foots the entire bill
If the government can't afford it alone - go with the private source along with the the government
If neither can afford it and it is a critical project then it would probably go on the national debt
If the private company can afford it and if the government can then I really have no preference, if I were a Representative I would vote yes on both in the hope that at least one gets passed



Now the point must exist.  

I see usually when I see PPP I think Purchasing Power Parity.

But why would you have no preference between both options if the latter saves tax payer money to be spent on something else? Do you just not care if government money is wasted when it doesn't have to be? This is kind of a big sticking point before I move on.

That same money would have be out of the tax payers hands either way, the money doesn't to the business to pay their share of the new hire by magic

Since you are not stating your point, I'm out.  If you want to make it then either post it next or send it to me in a private message because I don't play these ridiculous games.  

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Then message the two paths if that's the point.

Like I said, if you didn't post it I would be out.  So you can private message me your paths where the government gets Bill O'Reilly angry because it raised taxes to afford the additional $10,000 and the alternative where everything is great because in the conservative less government spending is always better.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

In this scenario I have no preference either way and with both I'd be fine.  I have no problems with PPP

Skip the details and get to the point.  What is your point, you are clearly trying to make one.  Either make your point or I'm done with you.  We've been going over back and forth all day and I just want to hear your point.

What is it?

So you wouldn't want the government to save the extra $10k?

And what do you mean by PPP?

Public Private Partnerships

In Dallas one of the commuter rail lines that has been proposed has had an alternative funding solution presented as a PPP because the transit agency doesn't have the funds via taxes alone to construct it.  If that ever moves forward I would presume that at least some people would have some percentage of the cost of their employment borne by the tax payers and some by whatever private entity they go with.  I don't even know if there is a full proposal.  However DART (the transit authority for most of Dallas County) simply doesn't have the money to move forward without some sort of external money source such as a grant from the federal government or as part of a PPP.

If there are no private sources of money - the government foots the entire bill
If the government can't afford it alone - go with the private source along with the the government
If neither can afford it and it is a critical project then it would probably go on the national debt
If the private company can afford it and if the government can then I really have no preference, if I were a Representative I would vote yes on both in the hope that at least one gets passed



Now the point must exist.  

I see usually when I see PPP I think Purchasing Power Parity.

But why would you have no preference between both options if the latter saves tax payer money to be spent on something else? Do you just not care if government money is wasted when it doesn't have to be? This is kind of a big sticking point before I move on.

I am with you on this debate, Wonkish. But I would add this concise fact that is so often overlooked among our friends on the left: In order for the government to give anybody anything, the government must take something from somebody (if they simply "print money" to "pay," they are still taking something from somebodies: lost purchasing power via inflation). In other words, all government spending is EVENTUALLY paid for by taxation on market activities and/or inflation upon society at large.

Okay, I give you the play by play.

The question of 100% of government expenditure for a job
vs.
80% gov. and 20% by a private investor
Is a no brainer for most sane people. Why waste the extra 20% when someone else is willing to fork it in.


So how about 80% and 20% vs. 50% and 50%
Same why waste the other 30% of expenditure when someone else is willing to kick in the other 30%

So how about 20% from the government and 80% by the private investor. Yet again the same is true.

How about even 10% from the government and 90% by the private investor. Again yet again the same is true why waste any more government money when he's willing to fund 90% of the project.

Why pay $50k in government expenditure to create a new job when you could create a job for only $5k in expenditure? You wouldn't. And the person that agrees to that simple stream of thought would have just agreed by default that tax cuts are a much more efficient way to create jobs than government expenditure is. You get more bang for your buck.

Meanwhile, why make 1 owner of 1 construction company much more wealthy when you decide to build that road, when you can make all job creators just marginally more wealthy? Seems a lot more fair to do the latter route. You don't pick winners and losers. And that is speaking from someone that knows wealthy folks that don't care what % taxes they pay because they are the beneficiary of government deals that have made them very wealthy as a consequence. Also since the private sector is better at delegating work to be done that generates a higher return on overall society then why wouldn't you want them to employ the next several hundred employees, than having the a central planner do it who has no idea what is the next most demanded project.

So your entire argument is based on the presumption that an investor actually has the money to move forward with hiring someone!  

It also presumes that a private investment costs the residents (tax payers) less because the government isn't taxing them as much, however the residents have been putting their money into that business.

It also presumes that all government spending is wasteful by default.  You are saying the taxpayers dollars are "wasted" in the scenario where the public investment is greater.  The person gets hired and the project gets done, the private company then saves the additional unspent money that he can put forward to future investments. 

lol

So what about in 2011 when private investors either don't have the money to fix the crumbling infrastructure or don't want to?

This played out exactly how I thought it would. lol


This is no different than me "walking you" through how a green house gas functions and coming to the ultimate conclusion that global warming is real while ignoring every other external factor.  See why I don't play these games?  I could easily rig one up for you which "teaches you" that global warming is 100% unquestionably, undeniably real.

You try to rig a game using biased information and ignoring external factors.  The main factor here you are ignoring is; Are businesses hiring and investing?  The answer in 2011 is generally not.