If the Presidential Election Was This Year...

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

...Obama would lose. Shame a few million people couldn't see the shambles his presidency has been.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

His numbers are even worse for his handling of the economy (average support 38.1%), and for his foreign policy (39.0%).

Let's be honest:

He's been a poor president - Aloof, arrogant, and no leadership skills in anything he does. He dithers and messes things up, and thinks "leading from behind" is good.

And he gets involved in local matters that aren't significant and he ends up looking like a fool (Gates, Trayvon, etc). And then there' the massive mess of Obamacare, which will only get worse. The NSA leaks. The IRS Scandal, and Benghazi (which STILL hasn't been dealt with. Unbelievable).

What does he do? He plays his 150th round of golf. Bush, at least, stopped golfing because he thought it was unprofessional and disrespectful to do so when troops are at war. Say what you like about Bush, but he was very humble - and still is. Obama? Not so much. He enjoys his lavish parties, and expensive vacations too much.

I think Obama is done as president. His 2nd term is entirely pointless. Just like what happened with Bush, around the exact same time.

Expect the comparisons to continue as the GOP should do well in the midterms, and most likely a Republican President in 2016.

You heard it here first. Let the majority of liberals on here bash me.....

[publicunofficial]

(Gates, Trayvon, etc)...The NSA leaks. The IRS Scandal, and Benghazi

I'll take "Things Nobody Outside of RedState Care About" for $500, Alex.

[Yank2133]

Oh Republicans.......

BTW, the GOP is even less popular then Obama.

[Dave from Michigan]

If the election was this year I would vote Obama no question, I started to regret my Romney vote about a month after the election and I'm so glad Obama won. I'm almost embarrassed to have to tell people I voted Romney. The Republican Party is f@cking crazy. I do worry about voter fatigue with Obama hurting the Democrats in 2016 but for now the Republicans have continued to make themselves looked stupid so it's not a big concern yet, but could become one.

[The Free North]

Get over it. The election was last year, not this year.

Dealing in reality and not 'if' will make you a lot happier in the long run.

[ElectionsGuy]

(Gates, Trayvon, etc)...The NSA leaks. The IRS Scandal, and Benghazi

I'll take "Things Nobody Outside of RedState Care About" for $500, Alex.

I can almost guarantee you if Bush did those things democrats would be the same way republicans are now. It doesn't matter, political parties are so polarized now that one party will over-emphasis the littlest things while the other party won't give a s*** at all.

But honestly, I don't care about a fake election right now, Obama's going to screw this up for himself. The people get what they vote for, and they're going to feel what they voted for.

[free my dawg]

Because f***ing up a rollout for a website is equivalent to not preparing for a national disaster.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Obama has a significant disadvantage this year compared to last year.  He's now being compared to Generic Republican instead of a specific opponent.  So much of politics these days consists of picking the guy who will do less damage and voting against the guy who will do more, that when you're not being compared to anyone else, people focus on the damage you do.

[RedSLC]

and Benghazi (which STILL hasn't been dealt with. Unbelievable).

Again, the only people that are still making an issue out of this are people in right-wing circles. Yes, it wasn't exactly handled the way that it should have been, but it's hardly a gigantic cover-up worthy of impeachment. Find something new to talk about.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Hey, remember this?

Irrelevant. Obama lost because his record is abysmal. End of, really. Romney now has the momentum because of that, and he's continued that theme, even if Obama speaks more smoothly.

Election is over. Mitt will be the next president.

[pbrower2a]

...Obama would lose. Shame a few million people couldn't see the shambles his presidency has been.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

His numbers are even worse for his handling of the economy (average support 38.1%), and for his foreign policy (39.0%).

Let's be honest:

He's been a poor president - Aloof, arrogant, and no leadership skills in anything he does. He dithers and messes things up, and thinks "leading from behind" is good.

The polls cratered over troubles with a federal website. If people can't keep their 'old' health insurance -- what they couldn't keep was something inadequate. Some of that insurance is nothing more than a discount plan in which the 'insurer' finds providers wiling to undercut others, the insurer simply splitting the difference. Some are nearly-worthless policies with deductibles that are more than the customer's life savings.

Maybe you understand auto insurance better. You are more likely to total a car than get a diagnosis of cancer. If you bought 'insurance' that simply directed you to a cut-rate repair ship (maybe one that uses parts from stolen vehicles) or had a $10K deductible on a $14K car would you have good insurance? Not good enough for the lender!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Medical costs were soaring. The world's most costly system of medical payments saps American competitiveness in manufacturing. We are losing well-paid jobs because American medical costs are higher than those in any other industrialized country. What we end up with is jobs in which the employer pays Third World wages and expects people to buy their own health insurance or take the gamble and do without.

Barack Obama tried to do something. Is it enough? No. We would be better off with a public option, one financed through a VAT and excise taxes so that those who are able to buy the bounty of capitalist productivity pay for the insurance of those who get paid little because such is 'competition'.

Because of its health care system Canada has an economic advantage over the US.  

Benghazi? Give him credit for greasing the skids (to Hell) for a very nasty dictator. So Libya doesn't have a fully modern police force because the secret police of Moammar Qaddafi enforced order by tortures and summary executions? Give us all a break.

NSA? It operates by its own rules. We should not be spying on foreign leaders who aren't enemies of the United States. That has been going on for decades. Of course I want it to end.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you ever golfed? It's a great way of clearing your mind of the cobwebs of life. Many businesses promote it among managers and executives. Any journey of the President is going to be expensive -- Secret Service, Air Force One, et al.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dubya lied to get us into a war that went very bad very fast. He bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina. At the same time he sponsored a speculative boom based upon subprime lending to people who should have never bought homes -- a speculative boom sure to implode much as its analogue in the 1920s did for much the same reason.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Software glitch -- or war gone bad. Which is more recoverable?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no breaking scandal.

[President von Cat]

The second term has definitely been disappointing so far, but I'm positive Obama is going to recover.

[7,052,770]

(Gates, Trayvon, etc)...The NSA leaks. The IRS Scandal, and Benghazi

I'll take "Things Nobody Outside of RedState Care About" for $500, Alex.

I can almost guarantee you if Bush did those things democrats would be the same way republicans are now.

14 similar incidents to Benghazi happened under Bush's watch, and not a peep from Democrats.
The IRS did nothing wrong, so it's impossible to have a corresponding "What if Bush did..." for it.
Trayvon and Gates?  Not sure what Obama had to do with either one of them, so there's no corresponding scenario for Bush.
NSA wiretaps?  Yeah, some Democrats would be mad about that, just like they are right now.  Of course, the criticism and the support for the program are both pretty bipartisan, and I think it would be the same had this program been revealed while Bush was president.

So, yeah, you're pretty much wrong entirely.

[barfbag]

This is an easy one. When the president's approval rating has been above 49%, they get re-elected. If it's below that, they lose. Romney would be president as he would've been after the first debate but before Sandy and Chris Christie's stomach could be the secretary of state and secretary of treasury.

[Indy Texas]

...Obama would lose. Shame a few million people couldn't see the shambles his presidency has been.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

His numbers are even worse for his handling of the economy (average support 38.1%), and for his foreign policy (39.0%).

Let's be honest:

He's been a poor president - Aloof, arrogant, and no leadership skills in anything he does. He dithers and messes things up, and thinks "leading from behind" is good.

And he gets involved in local matters that aren't significant and he ends up looking like a fool (Gates, Trayvon, etc). And then there' the massive mess of Obamacare, which will only get worse. The NSA leaks. The IRS Scandal, and Benghazi (which STILL hasn't been dealt with. Unbelievable).

What does he do? He plays his 150th round of golf. Bush, at least, stopped golfing because he thought it was unprofessional and disrespectful to do so when troops are at war. Say what you like about Bush, but he was very humble - and still is. Obama? Not so much. He enjoys his lavish parties, and expensive vacations too much.

I think Obama is done as president. His 2nd term is entirely pointless. Just like what happened with Bush, around the exact same time.

Expect the comparisons to continue as the GOP should do well in the midterms, and most likely a Republican President in 2016.

You heard it here first. Let the majority of liberals on here bash me.....

It's unprofessional and disrespectful to play golf in a time of war? Why? I guess it's okay for Bush to "clear brush" or whatever the hell he did back at the ranch. Before you complain, just remember that Bush is the one who sent those troops to Iraq in the first place.

You know who else threw lavish parties and formal affairs? Ronald Reagan. And I'm glad he did because when you have world leaders together in a relaxed, festive setting, a lot of diplomacy happens. Bush probably just avoided state dinners because the Chief of Protocol told him he couldn't wear a clip-on bowtie.

[publicunofficial]

This is an easy one. When the president's approval rating has been above 49%, they get re-elected. If it's below that, they lose.

Yes. Perfect. That is exactly how elections work.

Seriously, how can you spend so much time posting here and not pick up an iota of info on how elections work.

[tik 🪀✨]

Presidents that don't take time to relax the mind make worse decisions. Same goes for most people with very stressful jobs - including soldiers.

[barfbag]

This is an easy one. When the president's approval rating has been above 49%, they get re-elected. If it's below that, they lose.

Yes. Perfect. That is exactly how elections work.

Seriously, how can you spend so much time posting here and not pick up an iota of info on how elections work.

Use exit-polls to find me a re-elected president with an approval rating below 49%. How can you spend so much time posting here and not pick up an iota of info on how elections work?

[courts]

op is why obama voters dont have more obvious buyers remorse. all they have to do is look at the clowns that call themselves republicans now and any feelings of regret instantly diminish

[barfbag]

op is why obama voters dont have more obvious buyers remorse. all they have to do is look at the clowns that call themselves republicans now and any feelings of regret instantly diminish

They don't feel guilty that they get such a sweetheart deal on healthcare while others who have to work for a living have to pay more?

[pbrower2a]

This is an easy one. When the president's approval rating has been above 49%, they get re-elected. If it's below that, they lose. Romney would be president as he would've been after the first debate but before Sandy and Chris Christie's stomach could be the secretary of state and secretary of treasury.

Allow this to disabuse you of that myth:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/myth-of-incumbent-50-rule.html

By the way -- Silver expected the Democrat to hold the Governorship of Ohio and picked that one wrong in 2010 based on his theory. But overall  he found that the average incumbent who barely got re-elected had an approval rating of 44%.

But here is his analysis:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here are his data points from 2006 to 2009:



.....my analysis:

So what is going on? Very simply, incumbents seeking re-election campaign for re-election.  Unless they are abject failures as elected officials, they usually face weaker opponents. If they disappoint voters they show why voting for them was a mistake, they run from their records, and they lose -- or they 'choose not to run for re-election'.

It's not 'breaking scandals'. The journalists know something, and as a rule they stay away from politicians with problems. Politicians with breaking scandals usually have low approval ratings before the scandal breaks.

Opponents can take cheap shots at an elected official with impunity even if they offer no solutions. Once those opponents run against an incumbent, they must offer coherent alternatives if they are to win. Incumbents usually must campaign so that they can transform 48% approval into 50% or more of the share of the vote.

So what about the glaring exception -- a politician who had early approval over 50% and then lost? That was George Allen, an incumbent US Senator from Virginia, who represented a state drifting from solidly R to a true swing state, who faced an unusually-strong challenger, who campaigned ineptly, who faced a rapid decline in the view of his Party, and may have lost because his staffers beat a heckler.

This chart shows nothing about the 2010 election -- but Senators Feingold and Lincoln were floundering.  

[Gass3268]

(Gates, Trayvon, etc)...The NSA leaks. The IRS Scandal, and Benghazi

I'll take "Things Nobody Outside of RedState Care About" for $500, Alex.

I can almost guarantee you if Bush did those things democrats would be the same way republicans are now. It doesn't matter, political parties are so polarized now that one party will over-emphasis the littlest things while the other party won't give a s*** at all.

But honestly, I don't care about a fake election right now, Obama's going to screw this up for himself. The people get what they vote for, and they're going to feel what they voted for.

I'll give you the NSA stuff. Everything else is just bogus conspiracy mumbo-jumbo. Especially the fake IRS scandal.   

[barfbag]

This is an easy one. When the president's approval rating has been above 49%, they get re-elected. If it's below that, they lose. Romney would be president as he would've been after the first debate but before Sandy and Chris Christie's stomach could be the secretary of state and secretary of treasury.

Allow this to disabuse you of that myth:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/myth-of-incumbent-50-rule.html

By the way -- Silver expected the Democrat to hold the Governorship of Ohio and picked that one wrong in 2010 based on his theory. But overall  he found that the average incumbent who barely got re-elected had an approval rating of 44%.

But here is his analysis:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here are his data points from 2006 to 2009:



.....my analysis:

So what is going on? Very simply, incumbents seeking re-election campaign for re-election.  Unless they are abject failures as elected officials, they usually face weaker opponents. If they disappoint voters they show why voting for them was a mistake, they run from their records, and they lose -- or they 'choose not to run for re-election'.

It's not 'breaking scandals'. The journalists know something, and as a rule they stay away from politicians with problems. Politicians with breaking scandals usually have low approval ratings before the scandal breaks.

Opponents can take cheap shots at an elected official with impunity even if they offer no solutions. Once those opponents run against an incumbent, they must offer coherent alternatives if they are to win. Incumbents usually must campaign so that they can transform 48% approval into 50% or more of the share of the vote.

So what about the glaring exception -- a politician who had early approval over 50% and then lost? That was George Allen, an incumbent US Senator from Virginia, who represented a state drifting from solidly R to a true swing state, who faced an unusually-strong challenger, who campaigned ineptly, who faced a rapid decline in the view of his Party, and may have lost because his staffers beat a heckler.

This chart shows nothing about the 2010 election -- but Senators Feingold and Lincoln were floundering.  

I'm only talking about incumbent presidents. Professional polling started in the 1930's so this means Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. I'd be interested to see Truman and Ford's approval ratings though.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

If the 2004 Presidential Election was this year, Bush would lose.

Does not matter now, what's happened is over and done with.

Either way, Obama would probably still win, facing a real, flawed opponent who would perform worse than the Generic R would, not to mention that while Obama has the Obamacare rollout and a few tiny "scandals", the Republican Party has the government shutdown on its shoulders, still relatively fresh in the public's minds.

Of course it's possible that many of these events would not have happened, maybe the GOP not initiating the shutdown in order to prevent their candidate from sinking with them.

Not to mention the turnout would probably be even more D favorable than last year, with the demographic changes still occurring.

Don't set your expectations too high CCS. 2014 is still a year away, 2016 three. In 1991 Bush was considered undefeatable, and look what happened.

[barfbag]

If the 2004 Presidential Election was this year, Bush would lose.

Does not matter now, what's happened is over and done with.

Either way, Obama would probably still win, facing a real, flawed opponent who would perform worse than the Generic R would, not to mention that while Obama has the Obamacare rollout and a few tiny "scandals", the Republican Party has the government shutdown on its shoulders, still relatively fresh in the public's minds.

Of course it's possible that many of these events would not have happened, maybe the GOP not initiating the shutdown in order to prevent their candidate from sinking with them.

Not to mention the turnout would probably be even more D favorable than last year, with the demographic changes still occurring.

Don't set your expectations too high CCS. 2014 is still a year away, 2016 three. In 1991 Bush was considered undefeatable, and look what happened.

Mitt Romney could easily scold his party for the shutdown. It's pretty easy when you don't have anything to do with your party's Washington insiders.