Will 2016 be a Referendum on Obama?

[Mehmentum]

I'm leaning toward option #2.  Option #3 would only happen if the GOP nominates someone like Ted Cruz.  Option 4 is possible if Bush is nominated.

[justfollowingtheelections]

All of the above.

[Beet]

All of the above.

[The_Doctor]

Absolutely.

If the president is still at 43-45% two years from now and Republicans nominate a decent candidate, Hillary Clinton will lose. It's not her at that point, it's just the president being unpopular. It's happened in the past and there's little to say Hillary Clinton has somehow broken the relationship between a president's approval rating and election day result.

[Mr. Smith]

More likely a referendum on GOP Congress, they are even less popular than Obama, and now with them in entire control...they could easily do themselves in.

2012 was supposed to be a referendum after 2010, didn't work out that way.

[Bureaucat]

I think the Republican Congress will be a factor as well. Obama may still be unpopular in 2016, but unpopular enough for the country to feel confident about giving the GOP the White House total control of Washington? I think the Dems chances of holding the White House in 2016 went up when the Pubs took total control of the Hill.

[henster]

If Hillary runs a good campaign it won't be, the GOP will try to make it a referendum on Obama and they will win if they succeed. Hillary will try to make it a referendum on the GOP Congress or the GOP candidate whatever flaws they have.

[Ljube]

If Hillary runs a good campaign it won't be, the GOP will try to make it a referendum on Obama and they will win if they succeed. Hillary will try to make it a referendum on the GOP Congress or the GOP candidate whatever flaws they have.

Hillary is not known for running good campaigns.

[Bull Moose Base]

Absolutely.

If the president is still at 43-45% two years from now and Republicans nominate a decent candidate, Hillary Clinton will lose. It's not her at that point, it's just the president being unpopular. It's happened in the past and there's little to say Hillary Clinton has somehow broken the relationship between a president's approval rating and election day result.

W was far below low 40s. I think Truman was too. LBJ may have been close to that but that would be one case and a rare one with 3 different candidates winning states. A straight D vs R race with Obama in the low 40s wouldn't have much precedent.

[Reaganfan]

More likely a referendum on GOP Congress, they are even less popular than Obama, and now with them in entire control...they could easily do themselves in.

2012 was supposed to be a referendum after 2010, didn't work out that way.

I know how you are feeling. I was the same way in late 2006. I saw polls with John McCain ahead, still thought the Democrats had the reputation of 2002-2004, and thought Bush's unpopularity didn't matter. I call it "McCain denial".

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

All of the above.

[pbrower2a]

If people still want what President Obama wanted and hold Republicans culpable for frustrating his agenda, they will want his legacy -- with more success.

Republicans win big if they can convince Americans that they need to make great sacrifices on behalf of Big Business if they want prosperity greater than they then have.

[The_Doctor]

Absolutely.

If the president is still at 43-45% two years from now and Republicans nominate a decent candidate, Hillary Clinton will lose. It's not her at that point, it's just the president being unpopular. It's happened in the past and there's little to say Hillary Clinton has somehow broken the relationship between a president's approval rating and election day result.

W was far below low 40s. I think Truman was too. LBJ may have been close to that but that would be one case and a rare one with 3 different candidates winning states. A straight D vs R race with Obama in the low 40s wouldn't have much precedent.

See Reaganfan's answer for a bit of context.

My take on this is that essentially, the midterm cycles and last couple of Presidential election cycles have followed a pretty constant set of iron laws in American politics. (1) Voters tend to disapprove of the incumbent party in the midterms (2) Presidential elections are based on the incumbent's approval rating.

I believe that the party labels don't matter. I don't see anything "without precedent" - in fact, this upcoming election would be similar to 1952, 1968, and 2008. The incumbent president will almost certainly drag down the succeeding incumbent party candidate because of his unpopularity, and cap her ceiling. I also see little in the literature to suggest that succeeding party candidates can exceed the incumbent's re-election majority. That leads to another constant in American politics (3) Voters get tired of the incumbent party holding the White House and vote for "change" on a regular basis.

Unlike other precedents, they are pretty logical. A winning party usually has blowback because voters now hold them responsible for the nation's ills or voters supporting the losing party turn out in greater droves. Incumbent parties tend to wear out their welcome mats after years in office (the big reason only one Vice President has succeeded an incumbent President on his own in office since 1836).

Republicans learned this to our misfortune in 2008. I think seeing it play out on the Democratic side doesn't change that this is going to be a very difficult lift for the Democratic Party. Going off the 2008 example, John McCain did lead or was tied right after the Republican Convention and before the crash but would have probably lost narrowly to the President.

I've listed the falloff in the popular vote totals of incumbent parties vis a vis their successors. I'm trying to understand why Hillary Clinton would be any different.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Yes. Hilary can distance herself from Obama more than Biden or even a generic Dem could, but an election following a two-term President will always be a referendum on that President - follow their course or take a new path.

The only exception is an outlier from the party, someone like Manchin as the Dem nominee or Paul as the GOP nominee, who is actively running to overhaul the party.

[IceSpear]

All of the above.

[IceSpear]

Absolutely.

If the president is still at 43-45% two years from now and Republicans nominate a decent candidate, Hillary Clinton will lose. It's not her at that point, it's just the president being unpopular. It's happened in the past and there's little to say Hillary Clinton has somehow broken the relationship between a president's approval rating and election day result.

McCain still got 46% of the vote even when Bush was at 25% approval. The approval rating correlation is much stronger when an incumbent president is running as opposed to an open seat.

[BlueSwan]

Absolutely.

If the president is still at 43-45% two years from now and Republicans nominate a decent candidate, Hillary Clinton will lose. It's not her at that point, it's just the president being unpopular. It's happened in the past and there's little to say Hillary Clinton has somehow broken the relationship between a president's approval rating and election day result.

W was far below low 40s. I think Truman was too. LBJ may have been close to that but that would be one case and a rare one with 3 different candidates winning states. A straight D vs R race with Obama in the low 40s wouldn't have much precedent.

See Reaganfan's answer for a bit of context.

My take on this is that essentially, the midterm cycles and last couple of Presidential election cycles have followed a pretty constant set of iron laws in American politics. (1) Voters tend to disapprove of the incumbent party in the midterms (2) Presidential elections are based on the incumbent's approval rating.

I believe that the party labels don't matter. I don't see anything "without precedent" - in fact, this upcoming election would be similar to 1952, 1968, and 2008. The incumbent president will almost certainly drag down the succeeding incumbent party candidate because of his unpopularity, and cap her ceiling. I also see little in the literature to suggest that succeeding party candidates can exceed the incumbent's re-election majority. That leads to another constant in American politics (3) Voters get tired of the incumbent party holding the White House and vote for "change" on a regular basis.

Unlike other precedents, they are pretty logical. A winning party usually has blowback because voters now hold them responsible for the nation's ills or voters supporting the losing party turn out in greater droves. Incumbent parties tend to wear out their welcome mats after years in office (the big reason only one Vice President has succeeded an incumbent President on his own in office since 1836).

Republicans learned this to our misfortune in 2008. I think seeing it play out on the Democratic side doesn't change that this is going to be a very difficult lift for the Democratic Party. Going off the 2008 example, John McCain did lead or was tied right after the Republican Convention and before the crash but would have probably lost narrowly to the President.

I've listed the falloff in the popular vote totals of incumbent parties vis a vis their successors. I'm trying to understand why Hillary Clinton would be any different.

I agree that this means that generic D starts with an inherent disadvantage in 2016.

However, the US presidential election isn't between a generic R and generic D. It is between two actual candidates. Granted, the inherent disadvantage for generic D means that Hillary Clinton is probably the only democratic candidate that could beat a reasonably strong GOP candidate (i.e. not Cruz, Palin, etc.). But she definitely could given her 100% name recognition, universal respect (even if some despise her) and longing back to the Clinton years.

[Mr. Smith]

@Reagan: Yes, but when 2006-2008 happened, that was after the Democrats just got in.

This is long after the GOP took back the House, and gridlocked everything in between, and are coming in with that record, and once again, lower approval than Obama. And if the battle between the Establishment and Tea Party continues, an implosion is high.

Bush era Congress in all incarnations was never so loathed.

[ElectionsGuy]

Yes, the last presidential election that wasn't a referendum on a two term president was probably 1988.

[Mister Mets]

Yes, the last presidential election that wasn't a referendum on a two term president was probably 1988.

It might have still been a referendum on a guy the public really liked.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Was 2000 a referendum on Clinton? No, and neither will 2016 be a referendum on Obama. And tone down the revisionism Reaganfan, Bush's approvals were down at least 10% from Obama's at this point in 2006.

[dmmidmi]

How can it not be at least part of the equation? Each election is--somewhat--a referendum on the incumbent President, or the outgoing President.

Were people voting for Al Gore because he was such a spectacular individual, or because he represented a third Clinton term? Did people vote for George H.W. Bush because he was so beloved by the American public, or were people embracing the idea of a third Reagan term? Nixon probably benefitted from Eisenhower, as well (though, Eisenhower's comments to the press may have hurt Nixon's campaign).

Likewise, George W. Bush was an albatross for the McCain campaign, Richard Nixon was an albatross for the Ford campaign, and LBJ was an albatross for the mess that manifest in 1968.

Hillary Clinton is in a unique position where she was a known commodity long before anyone knew who Barack Obama was. Because Obama's cabinet was packed with Clinton-era holdovers, and Bill has maintained such a high profile, she may merely have to reconcile her campaign with the Obama years, rather than defend the current President's record.

Her situation may be a bit more similar to Bobby Kennedy's than Al Gore--affiliated with the incumbent administration, but capable of carving out an individual identity. One where the stench of the incumbent administration may be present, but less detectable.

[Bull Moose Base]

6 comparable open races since polling: 52, 60, 68, 88, 00, 08. They lead me to think the incumbent's approvals have a negligible effect unless they're extreme: W and Truman in the 20s. Even in 2008, McCain's convention bump put briefly him in the lead when Bush's approvals were close to or in the 20s. And with the share of voters willing to vote either way eroding as partisanship has hardened, the threshold to have any effect is probably even more extreme.

[RI]

If it's Hillary vs. Jeb, it'll be a referendum on Obama, Bush, and Clinton.

[Landslide Lyndon]

2012 has showed that demography and candidate quality matter more than abstract numbers.