Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 31, 2014, 06:53:52 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | |-+  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 360 361 362 363 364 [365] 366 367 368 369 370 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 678172 times)
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2269
View Profile
« Reply #9100 on: November 19, 2011, 12:31:10 pm »
Ignore


Nobody can predict who the 'likely voters' are.  

Perhaps Muon2 can enlighten you on how statistics work. "Voters" can't be predicted, but "likely voters" can. Sure, some voters that are not "likely voters" will in fact vote in the next election, and voters whom are "likely" to vote may not, but, the underlying statistical models underpinning the filter can be mathematically and empirically sound.


There is no doubt that a "likely voter" screen is a better way to poll when you get quite close to an actual election, but one year out it's a bit vague as to how useful that screening is.

This far out, I actually like what Marist/McClatchy and Fox (Opinion Dynamics) do which is run a poll of registered voters, and then NOT slam the undecided hard for a reply.

By limiting the pool to RVs you eliminate the folks who are really unlikley to vote, and by not slamming the undecided, you get the opinion of those who are at least marginally engaged in the process enough to have an a actual opinion.

McClatchy says 43/50 => -7, which is pretty much identical to Fox's 42/48 => -6

The Gold Standard poll (HART/McINTURFF for NBC/WSJ) says 44/51 => -7 which I think is pretty close to reality.

Obama is (IMHO) is in that grey area of polling where is is clearly vulnerable, but also not dead in the water. - Obama's polling looks a lot like Bush II in the summer of 2004 (Obama is maybe a few points weaker) - weak, with a very passionate and intense core of opposition, but also a base that is "hanging in there" and likely facing a challenger in the General election that is less than optimal....

Assuming the Obama folks can bury any ethics scandals, and assuming the GOP gets a flawed candidate, Obama can still will.  It's going to be very close.


President Obama is indeed cooked if...

(1) The Republicans find a really-strong, moderate opponent. A RINO could beat him... or a conservative capable of allaying concerns about whether the GOP agenda would be nothing more than All for the Few. 

(2) He has a significant and discrediting scandal that entails personal gain for raiding the public assets. If Dubya could survive Enron, then the President can survive Solyndra, the latter more a bad judgment on a business model than cronyism.

(3) He assumes that he will be re-elected so he doesn't need to campaign.

(4) The US economy goes very bad very fast.

1. The Republicans aren't running any RINO, and with the politicians that they now have they are not making significant inroads onto the "Blue Firewall" except perhaps New Hampshire -- if Mitt Romney can convince the Granite State that he is one of them.  He is up by nearly 10 points -- which is not surprising when he is much of the news in a state rarely known as a source for news.  If anything the President is consolidating a hold in Ohio, a state that the Republicans absolutely dare not lose.  This President saved the auto industry, or at least two of the Big Three.

2. There may be no scandal to cover up. If Dubya could survive Enron, this President can survive Solyndra.

3. This is a question of personality. Will he do any active campaigning? He seems to enjoy it. He built one of the finest campaign apparatuses ever in 2008 and he can get that back in operation very quickly. He has incentives because the Republican hold on the House will be shaky and the Democratic hold on the Senate looks shaky. This President anticipates trouble well and deals with it without delay.

4. Every month that passes without such happening makes such much less likely.

Americans are getting more fussy about politics altogether, which is a good thing. When it comes to voting, Americans end up grading on a curve. If the President's approval rating is 48% but the opponent has a favorability rating around 42%, then guess who wins! Should Americans be getting more fussy about politics? Without question. We recently had a horrible President, and the House of Representatives is achieving nothing.

President Obama could win the electoral vote despite being second in the popular vote.   


Presidential elections are, by and large, a referendum on the economy. Obama is pretty much cooked unless either the economy improves [almost too late for that since perception lags reality,] or he can successfully change the subject [the economy almost always being the main subject.]

Obamanomics has been a disaster. He has created such uncertainty that unemployment is apt to remain high until after he leaves office. Let's hope for the sake of the unemployed that that is in January of 2013.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10254
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9101 on: November 19, 2011, 03:58:27 pm »
Ignore


Nobody can predict who the 'likely voters' are.  

Perhaps Muon2 can enlighten you on how statistics work. "Voters" can't be predicted, but "likely voters" can. Sure, some voters that are not "likely voters" will in fact vote in the next election, and voters whom are "likely" to vote may not, but, the underlying statistical models underpinning the filter can be mathematically and empirically sound.


There is no doubt that a "likely voter" screen is a better way to poll when you get quite close to an actual election, but one year out it's a bit vague as to how useful that screening is.

This far out, I actually like what Marist/McClatchy and Fox (Opinion Dynamics) do which is run a poll of registered voters, and then NOT slam the undecided hard for a reply.

By limiting the pool to RVs you eliminate the folks who are really unlikley to vote, and by not slamming the undecided, you get the opinion of those who are at least marginally engaged in the process enough to have an a actual opinion.

McClatchy says 43/50 => -7, which is pretty much identical to Fox's 42/48 => -6

The Gold Standard poll (HART/McINTURFF for NBC/WSJ) says 44/51 => -7 which I think is pretty close to reality.

Obama is (IMHO) is in that grey area of polling where is is clearly vulnerable, but also not dead in the water. - Obama's polling looks a lot like Bush II in the summer of 2004 (Obama is maybe a few points weaker) - weak, with a very passionate and intense core of opposition, but also a base that is "hanging in there" and likely facing a challenger in the General election that is less than optimal....

Assuming the Obama folks can bury any ethics scandals, and assuming the GOP gets a flawed candidate, Obama can still will.  It's going to be very close.


President Obama is indeed cooked if...

(1) The Republicans find a really-strong, moderate opponent. A RINO could beat him... or a conservative capable of allaying concerns about whether the GOP agenda would be nothing more than All for the Few. 

(2) He has a significant and discrediting scandal that entails personal gain for raiding the public assets. If Dubya could survive Enron, then the President can survive Solyndra, the latter more a bad judgment on a business model than cronyism.

(3) He assumes that he will be re-elected so he doesn't need to campaign.

(4) The US economy goes very bad very fast.

1. The Republicans aren't running any RINO, and with the politicians that they now have they are not making significant inroads onto the "Blue Firewall" except perhaps New Hampshire -- if Mitt Romney can convince the Granite State that he is one of them.  He is up by nearly 10 points -- which is not surprising when he is much of the news in a state rarely known as a source for news.  If anything the President is consolidating a hold in Ohio, a state that the Republicans absolutely dare not lose.  This President saved the auto industry, or at least two of the Big Three.

2. There may be no scandal to cover up. If Dubya could survive Enron, this President can survive Solyndra.

3. This is a question of personality. Will he do any active campaigning? He seems to enjoy it. He built one of the finest campaign apparatuses ever in 2008 and he can get that back in operation very quickly. He has incentives because the Republican hold on the House will be shaky and the Democratic hold on the Senate looks shaky. This President anticipates trouble well and deals with it without delay.

4. Every month that passes without such happening makes such much less likely.

Americans are getting more fussy about politics altogether, which is a good thing. When it comes to voting, Americans end up grading on a curve. If the President's approval rating is 48% but the opponent has a favorability rating around 42%, then guess who wins! Should Americans be getting more fussy about politics? Without question. We recently had a horrible President, and the House of Representatives is achieving nothing.

President Obama could win the electoral vote despite being second in the popular vote.   


Presidential elections are, by and large, a referendum on the economy. Obama is pretty much cooked unless either the economy improves [almost too late for that since perception lags reality,] or he can successfully change the subject [the economy almost always being the main subject.]

Obamanomics has been a disaster. He has created such uncertainty that unemployment is apt to remain high until after he leaves office. Let's hope for the sake of the unemployed that that is in January of 2013.

The economic realities of the Dubya era included:

1. A capital-devouring speculative bubble in real estate. This bubble collapsed when housing prices overtook any reasonable possibility of buyers having the capacity to buy houses. When the construction ended, then the jobs related to that boom also ended.

2. The gutting of manufacturing jobs due to corporate choices (with which the Right acquiesced)  to become importers instead of manufacturers. Manufacturing jobs have typically been the most reliable means out of poverty and for staying out of poverty. Rarely are they the first choices for most people -- but there are only so many professional jobs out there.

3. Extreme intensification of economic inequality. The Gini coefficient for the United States, which had been on par with European democracies in the 1970s, is now on par with countries infamous for severe disparities of wealth and poverty. Economic inequality in the US is typical of a fascist dictatorship, a kleptocracy, or an economy with feudal characteristics. In our case it is an executive elite that enriches itself by destroying competition and paring the payroll for its own compensation.

4. Huge military expenditures on wars for the profits of military contractors and the glorification of the political leadership. Those have a tendency to create jobs during a war, but as the expenditures approach an end, the wartime jobs disappear. President Obama has been getting us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, but such implies an end of a gravy train for some giant corporations and huge job losses.

The analogy to the current economy may be to the 1930s.  FDR was able to win re-election in a landslide in 1936 despite high unemployment. At this point, all that anyone can hope for is slow and continuing improvement with major reforms of the system. The Republicans got their second chance to show what they have to offer with their House majority, and they have blown it badly.

   
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2269
View Profile
« Reply #9102 on: November 19, 2011, 06:04:02 pm »
Ignore


Nobody can predict who the 'likely voters' are.  

Perhaps Muon2 can enlighten you on how statistics work. "Voters" can't be predicted, but "likely voters" can. Sure, some voters that are not "likely voters" will in fact vote in the next election, and voters whom are "likely" to vote may not, but, the underlying statistical models underpinning the filter can be mathematically and empirically sound.


There is no doubt that a "likely voter" screen is a better way to poll when you get quite close to an actual election, but one year out it's a bit vague as to how useful that screening is.

This far out, I actually like what Marist/McClatchy and Fox (Opinion Dynamics) do which is run a poll of registered voters, and then NOT slam the undecided hard for a reply.

By limiting the pool to RVs you eliminate the folks who are really unlikley to vote, and by not slamming the undecided, you get the opinion of those who are at least marginally engaged in the process enough to have an a actual opinion.

McClatchy says 43/50 => -7, which is pretty much identical to Fox's 42/48 => -6

The Gold Standard poll (HART/McINTURFF for NBC/WSJ) says 44/51 => -7 which I think is pretty close to reality.

Obama is (IMHO) is in that grey area of polling where is is clearly vulnerable, but also not dead in the water. - Obama's polling looks a lot like Bush II in the summer of 2004 (Obama is maybe a few points weaker) - weak, with a very passionate and intense core of opposition, but also a base that is "hanging in there" and likely facing a challenger in the General election that is less than optimal....

Assuming the Obama folks can bury any ethics scandals, and assuming the GOP gets a flawed candidate, Obama can still will.  It's going to be very close.


President Obama is indeed cooked if...

(1) The Republicans find a really-strong, moderate opponent. A RINO could beat him... or a conservative capable of allaying concerns about whether the GOP agenda would be nothing more than All for the Few. 

(2) He has a significant and discrediting scandal that entails personal gain for raiding the public assets. If Dubya could survive Enron, then the President can survive Solyndra, the latter more a bad judgment on a business model than cronyism.

(3) He assumes that he will be re-elected so he doesn't need to campaign.

(4) The US economy goes very bad very fast.

1. The Republicans aren't running any RINO, and with the politicians that they now have they are not making significant inroads onto the "Blue Firewall" except perhaps New Hampshire -- if Mitt Romney can convince the Granite State that he is one of them.  He is up by nearly 10 points -- which is not surprising when he is much of the news in a state rarely known as a source for news.  If anything the President is consolidating a hold in Ohio, a state that the Republicans absolutely dare not lose.  This President saved the auto industry, or at least two of the Big Three.

2. There may be no scandal to cover up. If Dubya could survive Enron, this President can survive Solyndra.

3. This is a question of personality. Will he do any active campaigning? He seems to enjoy it. He built one of the finest campaign apparatuses ever in 2008 and he can get that back in operation very quickly. He has incentives because the Republican hold on the House will be shaky and the Democratic hold on the Senate looks shaky. This President anticipates trouble well and deals with it without delay.

4. Every month that passes without such happening makes such much less likely.

Americans are getting more fussy about politics altogether, which is a good thing. When it comes to voting, Americans end up grading on a curve. If the President's approval rating is 48% but the opponent has a favorability rating around 42%, then guess who wins! Should Americans be getting more fussy about politics? Without question. We recently had a horrible President, and the House of Representatives is achieving nothing.

President Obama could win the electoral vote despite being second in the popular vote.   


Presidential elections are, by and large, a referendum on the economy. Obama is pretty much cooked unless either the economy improves [almost too late for that since perception lags reality,] or he can successfully change the subject [the economy almost always being the main subject.]

Obamanomics has been a disaster. He has created such uncertainty that unemployment is apt to remain high until after he leaves office. Let's hope for the sake of the unemployed that that is in January of 2013.

The economic realities of the Dubya era included:

1. A capital-devouring speculative bubble in real estate. This bubble collapsed when housing prices overtook any reasonable possibility of buyers having the capacity to buy houses. When the construction ended, then the jobs related to that boom also ended.

2. The gutting of manufacturing jobs due to corporate choices (with which the Right acquiesced)  to become importers instead of manufacturers. Manufacturing jobs have typically been the most reliable means out of poverty and for staying out of poverty. Rarely are they the first choices for most people -- but there are only so many professional jobs out there.

3. Extreme intensification of economic inequality. The Gini coefficient for the United States, which had been on par with European democracies in the 1970s, is now on par with countries infamous for severe disparities of wealth and poverty. Economic inequality in the US is typical of a fascist dictatorship, a kleptocracy, or an economy with feudal characteristics. In our case it is an executive elite that enriches itself by destroying competition and paring the payroll for its own compensation.

4. Huge military expenditures on wars for the profits of military contractors and the glorification of the political leadership. Those have a tendency to create jobs during a war, but as the expenditures approach an end, the wartime jobs disappear. President Obama has been getting us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, but such implies an end of a gravy train for some giant corporations and huge job losses.

The analogy to the current economy may be to the 1930s.  FDR was able to win re-election in a landslide in 1936 despite high unemployment. At this point, all that anyone can hope for is slow and continuing improvement with major reforms of the system. The Republicans got their second chance to show what they have to offer with their House majority, and they have blown it badly.

   


Have to say that if I were a Democrat I'd rather run against Bush than for Obama. Too bad for Democrats that 2012 will be a referendum on Obama's handling of the economy as much as 2008 was a referendum on the Bush's handling of the economy.
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4963


View Profile
« Reply #9103 on: November 19, 2011, 06:29:33 pm »
Ignore


Nobody can predict who the 'likely voters' are.  

Perhaps Muon2 can enlighten you on how statistics work. "Voters" can't be predicted, but "likely voters" can. Sure, some voters that are not "likely voters" will in fact vote in the next election, and voters whom are "likely" to vote may not, but, the underlying statistical models underpinning the filter can be mathematically and empirically sound.


There is no doubt that a "likely voter" screen is a better way to poll when you get quite close to an actual election, but one year out it's a bit vague as to how useful that screening is.

This far out, I actually like what Marist/McClatchy and Fox (Opinion Dynamics) do which is run a poll of registered voters, and then NOT slam the undecided hard for a reply.

By limiting the pool to RVs you eliminate the folks who are really unlikley to vote, and by not slamming the undecided, you get the opinion of those who are at least marginally engaged in the process enough to have an a actual opinion.

McClatchy says 43/50 => -7, which is pretty much identical to Fox's 42/48 => -6

The Gold Standard poll (HART/McINTURFF for NBC/WSJ) says 44/51 => -7 which I think is pretty close to reality.

Obama is (IMHO) is in that grey area of polling where is is clearly vulnerable, but also not dead in the water. - Obama's polling looks a lot like Bush II in the summer of 2004 (Obama is maybe a few points weaker) - weak, with a very passionate and intense core of opposition, but also a base that is "hanging in there" and likely facing a challenger in the General election that is less than optimal....

Assuming the Obama folks can bury any ethics scandals, and assuming the GOP gets a flawed candidate, Obama can still will.  It's going to be very close.


President Obama is indeed cooked if...

(1) The Republicans find a really-strong, moderate opponent. A RINO could beat him... or a conservative capable of allaying concerns about whether the GOP agenda would be nothing more than All for the Few. 

(2) He has a significant and discrediting scandal that entails personal gain for raiding the public assets. If Dubya could survive Enron, then the President can survive Solyndra, the latter more a bad judgment on a business model than cronyism.

(3) He assumes that he will be re-elected so he doesn't need to campaign.

(4) The US economy goes very bad very fast.

1. The Republicans aren't running any RINO, and with the politicians that they now have they are not making significant inroads onto the "Blue Firewall" except perhaps New Hampshire -- if Mitt Romney can convince the Granite State that he is one of them.  He is up by nearly 10 points -- which is not surprising when he is much of the news in a state rarely known as a source for news.  If anything the President is consolidating a hold in Ohio, a state that the Republicans absolutely dare not lose.  This President saved the auto industry, or at least two of the Big Three.

2. There may be no scandal to cover up. If Dubya could survive Enron, this President can survive Solyndra.

3. This is a question of personality. Will he do any active campaigning? He seems to enjoy it. He built one of the finest campaign apparatuses ever in 2008 and he can get that back in operation very quickly. He has incentives because the Republican hold on the House will be shaky and the Democratic hold on the Senate looks shaky. This President anticipates trouble well and deals with it without delay.

4. Every month that passes without such happening makes such much less likely.

Americans are getting more fussy about politics altogether, which is a good thing. When it comes to voting, Americans end up grading on a curve. If the President's approval rating is 48% but the opponent has a favorability rating around 42%, then guess who wins! Should Americans be getting more fussy about politics? Without question. We recently had a horrible President, and the House of Representatives is achieving nothing.

President Obama could win the electoral vote despite being second in the popular vote.   


Presidential elections are, by and large, a referendum on the economy. Obama is pretty much cooked unless either the economy improves [almost too late for that since perception lags reality,] or he can successfully change the subject [the economy almost always being the main subject.]

Obamanomics has been a disaster. He has created such uncertainty that unemployment is apt to remain high until after he leaves office. Let's hope for the sake of the unemployed that that is in January of 2013.

The economic realities of the Dubya era included:

1. A capital-devouring speculative bubble in real estate. This bubble collapsed when housing prices overtook any reasonable possibility of buyers having the capacity to buy houses. When the construction ended, then the jobs related to that boom also ended.

2. The gutting of manufacturing jobs due to corporate choices (with which the Right acquiesced)  to become importers instead of manufacturers. Manufacturing jobs have typically been the most reliable means out of poverty and for staying out of poverty. Rarely are they the first choices for most people -- but there are only so many professional jobs out there.

3. Extreme intensification of economic inequality. The Gini coefficient for the United States, which had been on par with European democracies in the 1970s, is now on par with countries infamous for severe disparities of wealth and poverty. Economic inequality in the US is typical of a fascist dictatorship, a kleptocracy, or an economy with feudal characteristics. In our case it is an executive elite that enriches itself by destroying competition and paring the payroll for its own compensation.

4. Huge military expenditures on wars for the profits of military contractors and the glorification of the political leadership. Those have a tendency to create jobs during a war, but as the expenditures approach an end, the wartime jobs disappear. President Obama has been getting us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, but such implies an end of a gravy train for some giant corporations and huge job losses.

The analogy to the current economy may be to the 1930s.  FDR was able to win re-election in a landslide in 1936 despite high unemployment. At this point, all that anyone can hope for is slow and continuing improvement with major reforms of the system. The Republicans got their second chance to show what they have to offer with their House majority, and they have blown it badly.

   

This is a completely different time than 1936.  If the current period was comparable to 1936, Democrats would have gained seats in 2010 like in 1934. 
Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29907
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9104 on: November 20, 2011, 12:35:19 am »
Ignore

It is far more analogous to 1940 in that the President does badly on the economy, but does well on foreign policy. In 1940, it was WWII breaking out in Europe that saved FDR by knocking the economy down a few rungs as the most important issue. Most came to the conclusion that he had failed to the end the Depression, but prefered a two term President to a guy with no political experience when the things went to hell in a hand basket in Europe. The question for Obama is, what could arise overseas that won't be spun successfully by the opposition as being a result of a failure by Obama. Considering the realities of the modern US and it's role in the world compared to 1939 and 1940, there is little that can occur that can't be connected with the President's foreign policy as far as a campaign goes. Back then the US was far less engaged in the world as a matter of practice and principle stretching back to Washington.  

It is also similar in that the President had a very unfavorable result in the previous midterm election. In 1938, Republicans had gained enough seats to block legislation in conjunction with Conservative Democrats in the South and other places. In 2010, the Republicans took the House.


Such is the 1930's on an expedited time scale. 1934 and 1936 are skipped because of the higher level of impatience on the part of the electorate, the 24 hour news cycle and of course the much higher level of distrust in gov't. In the 1930's, gov't wasn't so disliked by the people that it was on the same level as bankers almost like it is now. As such, people embraced programs and reforms made by gov't to fix problems and only turned against FDR once the results were inferior to what was desired. Now, people turned against programs even before they are passed going back to the Bush administration. There is no grace period of "well let's give him a chance to clean it up". It's "fix it now, or you are gone".
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34715
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -6.09

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #9105 on: November 20, 2011, 01:32:04 am »
Ignore

Rasmussen: 46-52

Gallup: 43-47
Logged
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2269
View Profile
« Reply #9106 on: November 20, 2011, 01:36:05 am »
Ignore

Rasmussen: 46-52

22-40 SA/D

Quote
Gallup: 43-47
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10254
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9107 on: November 20, 2011, 04:49:17 am »
Ignore

It is far more analogous to 1940 in that the President does badly on the economy, but does well on foreign policy. In 1940, it was WWII breaking out in Europe that saved FDR by knocking the economy down a few rungs as the most important issue. Most came to the conclusion that he had failed to the end the Depression, but prefered a two term President to a guy with no political experience when the things went to hell in a hand basket in Europe. The question for Obama is, what could arise overseas that won't be spun successfully by the opposition as being a result of a failure by Obama. Considering the realities of the modern US and it's role in the world compared to 1939 and 1940, there is little that can occur that can't be connected with the President's foreign policy as far as a campaign goes. Back then the US was far less engaged in the world as a matter of practice and principle stretching back to Washington.  

It is also similar in that the President had a very unfavorable result in the previous midterm election. In 1938, Republicans had gained enough seats to block legislation in conjunction with Conservative Democrats in the South and other places. In 2010, the Republicans took the House.


Such is the 1930's on an expedited time scale. 1934 and 1936 are skipped because of the higher level of impatience on the part of the electorate, the 24 hour news cycle and of course the much higher level of distrust in gov't. In the 1930's, gov't wasn't so disliked by the people that it was on the same level as bankers almost like it is now. As such, people embraced programs and reforms made by gov't to fix problems and only turned against FDR once the results were inferior to what was desired. Now, people turned against programs even before they are passed going back to the Bush administration. There is no grace period of "well let's give him a chance to clean it up". It's "fix it now, or you are gone".

The 1930s are still more relevant to this decade than any later decade, and this decade is more like the 1930s than is any other subsequent decade. To be sure the 1930s began in peace and ended in the worst war in history;  the technology of the news (including polling) is vastly advanced. But the '30s/'10s analogue is awkward in one respect; the Republicans underwent a severe defeat in 2006 before the economy melted down. If 2006 was the political equivalent of 1930 and 2008 was the political equivalent of 1932, then  2007 was the economic equivalent of 1929 and 2009 was the economic equivalent of 1931 -- at least at the start. We may have been spared the economic equivalents of late 1931 through late 1932 that put the world into a rut that rook a long time to get out of.  The rut this time is not so severe, but it is no easier to get out of.

To predict whether the President will be re-elected we need to imagine how he can fail. I look at the failures of the last 110 years and I see huge differences. William Howard Taft was temperamentally unsuited to the Presidency; he made a fine judge and Chief Justice. Such could be the conceivable future for this President -- except that he is temperamentally suited to the Presidency. If re-elected he could have a rest-of-his-life much like Taft.

Hoover? That would take a reprise of the current meltdown... but this time there is no speculative boom to go awry. The relevant boom died four years ago.

Ford? Mediocre President, awful campaigner. President Obama is at worst a mediocre President and a superb campaigner.

Carter? A favorite analogue that very partisan Republicans like to see, but this President has foreign-policy successes and no stagflation to hurt him.  He also has far more legislative achievements than Carter. Jimmy Carter was one of the least effective Presidents ever, and his one win depended upon holding onto a coalition of poor blacks and poor whites in the South that seems unlikely to ever be put together again.

The elder Bush? I think that no President since John Knox Polk ever so achieved everything that he wanted to accomplish in one term and had nothing left to achieve. Successes in foreign policy rarely have sequels. Bill Clinton adopted the foreign policy of the elder Bush in practice. It is unfortunate that Dubya didn't.

I think that Republican candidates for President would be wise to concede successes in  foreign policy to President Obama as a done deal and promise to continue it. The current carping about the President's foreign policy is analogous to complaining that Romeo and Juliet would be better with a happy ending,  that Beethoven should have used a different text in the last movement of his Choral (Ninth) Symphony, or that Vincent van Gogh should have put his stars in a discernible constellations in http://www.most-famous-paintings.org/Starry-Night-large.html

Now as for the economy -- I predict that the President will run against Congress. That is more  analogous to 1948 than to any time between 1930 and 1940.  The Republicans have shown what their economic agenda is after suggesting that it is a new and improved version of recent Republican policies that might stimulate economic growth. That agenda has been shown as nothing more than the enrichment of elites at the expense of everyone else. It implies major reductions in living standards that would require incredible economic growth over decades just to compensate for the mass hardships.  Who wants a fresh start in a return to the Gilded Age or even the Roaring Twenties?   

Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2269
View Profile
« Reply #9108 on: November 20, 2011, 01:10:11 pm »
Ignore

Rasmussen:

23-38 [-15]

47-51
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
Skill and Chance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2045
View Profile
« Reply #9109 on: November 20, 2011, 01:52:53 pm »
Ignore

Rasmussen:

23-38 [-15]

47-51

The strongly disapprove vs. strongly approve business is irrelevant, unless one of the two somehow exceeds 50%.  Everyone gets one vote.  It doesn't matter how passionate that vote is.  It might matter for fund raising, but Obama is presently romping there anyway. 
Logged
"'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"
DarthNader
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 394


View Profile
« Reply #9110 on: November 20, 2011, 03:08:59 pm »
Ignore

The strongly disapprove vs. strongly approve business is irrelevant, unless one of the two somehow exceeds 50%.  Everyone gets one vote.  It doesn't matter how passionate that vote is.

Less passionate voters are less likely to bother voting.
Logged
BigSkyBob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2269
View Profile
« Reply #9111 on: November 20, 2011, 03:10:03 pm »
Ignore

Rasmussen:

23-38 [-15]

47-51

The strongly disapprove vs. strongly approve business is irrelevant, unless one of the two somehow exceeds 50%. 

I would say that the mid-forties is the danger area, while 50% is fatal.

Quote
Everyone gets one vote.  It doesn't matter how passionate that vote is.  It might matter for fund raising, but Obama is presently romping there anyway. 
Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.
Skill and Chance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2045
View Profile
« Reply #9112 on: November 20, 2011, 03:25:48 pm »
Ignore

Rasmussen:

23-38 [-15]

47-51

The strongly disapprove vs. strongly approve business is irrelevant, unless one of the two somehow exceeds 50%. 

I would say that the mid-forties is the danger area, while 50% is fatal.

Quote
Everyone gets one vote.  It doesn't matter how passionate that vote is.  It might matter for fund raising, but Obama is presently romping there anyway. 

So if next Nov 1, Obama is at 50%A/46%D and 45% disapprove strongly, you would predict he would lose?  I don't agree.  Similarly, an incumbent with 44% approval and 43% approve strongly, probably still isn't going to win.
Logged
asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12699


View Profile
« Reply #9113 on: November 20, 2011, 04:35:50 pm »
Ignore

I think there's an implied 'all else being equal' in Bob's post. (There's also an implied 'hackish bull' in all or most or Bob's posts, but I don't think that's as intentional on the part of the author.)
« Last Edit: November 20, 2011, 04:37:28 pm by Nathan »Logged

A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights.

His idea of freedom is - it is a bad thing and should be stopped at all costs.

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally.
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29907
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9114 on: November 20, 2011, 04:41:48 pm »
Ignore

Rasmussen:

23-38 [-15]

47-51

The strongly disapprove vs. strongly approve business is irrelevant, unless one of the two somehow exceeds 50%.

I would say that the mid-forties is the danger area, while 50% is fatal.

Quote
Everyone gets one vote.  It doesn't matter how passionate that vote is.  It might matter for fund raising, but Obama is presently romping there anyway. 

So if next Nov 1, Obama is at 50%A/46%D and 45% disapprove strongly, you would predict he would lose?  I don't agree.  Similarly, an incumbent with 44% approval and 43% approve strongly, probably still isn't going to win.


It reflects an intensity gap that coud swing a tied race against him based on turnout. But not much more.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Skill and Chance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2045
View Profile
« Reply #9115 on: November 20, 2011, 05:06:56 pm »
Ignore

Rasmussen:

23-38 [-15]

47-51

The strongly disapprove vs. strongly approve business is irrelevant, unless one of the two somehow exceeds 50%.

I would say that the mid-forties is the danger area, while 50% is fatal.

Quote
Everyone gets one vote.  It doesn't matter how passionate that vote is.  It might matter for fund raising, but Obama is presently romping there anyway. 

So if next Nov 1, Obama is at 50%A/46%D and 45% disapprove strongly, you would predict he would lose?  I don't agree.  Similarly, an incumbent with 44% approval and 43% approve strongly, probably still isn't going to win.


It reflects an intensity gap that coud swing a tied race against him based on turnout. But not much more.

Intensity gaps are accounted for by using a Likely Voters model.  And polling "likely voters" a year before the election raises its own issues (ex. 18th birthday in 2012, citizenship in 2012, etc.). 
Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29907
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9116 on: November 20, 2011, 05:08:23 pm »
Ignore

Apples and Oranges. Tongue

Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32039
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9117 on: November 21, 2011, 12:19:48 am »
Ignore

Actually, Obama's numbers have improved a great deal.  45% on Gallup is survivable. 
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Skill and Chance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2045
View Profile
« Reply #9118 on: November 21, 2011, 12:35:55 pm »
Ignore

Actually, Obama's numbers have improved a great deal.  45% on Gallup is survivable. 

I still think he would lose to Romney by a state or two if the election were next month.  That having been said, it's becoming increasingly obvious that he will win with any noticeable economic improvement in 2012.  Romney can beat him in the economic status quo.  If anyone else wins the GOP nomination, they will probably need another 2008-style crash before the election to beat him.
Logged
"'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"
DarthNader
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 394


View Profile
« Reply #9119 on: November 22, 2011, 03:14:13 pm »
Ignore

Today:

Gallup - 43/50
Rasmussen - 45/52
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10254
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9120 on: November 22, 2011, 09:17:05 pm »
Ignore

Actually, Obama's numbers have improved a great deal.  45% on Gallup is survivable. 

I still think he would lose to Romney by a state or two if the election were next month.  That having been said, it's becoming increasingly obvious that he will win with any noticeable economic improvement in 2012.  Romney can beat him in the economic status quo.  If anyone else wins the GOP nomination, they will probably need another 2008-style crash before the election to beat him.

At this point the President would lose if  he failed to campaign for re-election or campaigned ineffectively. The Democrats have yet to harp on Mitt Romney's ideological inconsistencies and his participation in corporate restructuring that on the net destroyed jobs. The Democrats (and especially liberal-leaning media) have unleashed the salvos on other possible GOP nominees  except for Romney. The kid gloves toward him stay on so long as someone else is the front-runner but come off once the campaign begins in earnest.   

In general one can add an average of 6% to the approval rating of an incumbent Governor or Senator at the start of the campaign season to get the percentage of the total vote for the incumbent.  Because the Presidential campaign is basically 50 statewide elections won much as gubernatorial or senatorial races are won, you can expect much the same for an incumbent President. As a strict rule a challenger who ends up winning has a large lead with perhaps lots of undecided and the incumbent cuts into that large lead but not well enough because such a lead for the challenger is simply too much. Of course such shows that the incumbent is wildly unpopular for a good reason -- like being seen as extreme,  inept, aloof, or even corrupt. Add to that, the incumbent almost invariably has shown the ability to campaign for the office and set up a good electoral apparatus, which the challenger rarely does adeptly.

Challengers can carp at will about the incumbent until the nominations are in place. Add to that the incumbent can't operate in campaign mode all the time and is compelled to make decisions, such as budgeting and voting, likely to disappoint some who voted for him. Once the nominations are certain, the incumbent's campaign can dish out the negative campaign against the challenger.  Negative campaigns that question the ability of the challenger to do as effectively may be the last resort -- but that is how Dubya won re-election in 2004.

The argument that the President is an extremist is nothing new; it was used against him in 2008 and proved inadequate. Such is likely to be as ineffective an argument against the President this time as it was against Ronald Reagan in 1984. People who thought that he was disloyal or suspect in loyalty to America, that he was going to take away firearms from people who have veritable fetishes about them, that he was a secret Muslim (with FDR it was that FDR was really a Jew,  which was then about as distant from the political mainstream), or that he would operate as an autocrat are still convinced of that.

The 2012 election will be in part a referendum on foreign policy and economic improvement. The President is solid on foreign policy and military matters. Now for the economy -- can he win with a weak economy?

Absolutely not if the economy tanks. There's just too little to tank. We don't have a corrupt speculative boom  set to implode; the last boom imploded three to four years ago. Slow improvement is the best that anyone can ask for even if it means that things are now less attractive than they were five years ago. FDR was able to get re-elected despite unemployment higher than what President Obama has staring at him.       
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4567


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

View Profile
« Reply #9121 on: November 23, 2011, 03:30:52 pm »
Ignore

Obama is pretty stable re job approval right now.

A poll to the same poll comparison shows approval staying in the upper end of the 40-45% range, and disapproval hanging in right around 50% for a net of -6 or -7.

Normally....

50% approval = reelection
40% approval = dead in the water

Obama is slightly to the dark side of the grey area.

Of course these numbers are meaningless right now, tune in in 3 months and these numbers start to have an actual predictive value for November 2012.

Logged

No man's liberty is safe while Congress is in session...Thomas Jefferson
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32039
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9122 on: November 23, 2011, 04:14:57 pm »
Ignore

I'll try to get back to daily numbers after the holiday.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4963


View Profile
« Reply #9123 on: November 23, 2011, 05:31:28 pm »
Ignore

Actually, Obama's numbers have improved a great deal.  45% on Gallup is survivable. 

I still think he would lose to Romney by a state or two if the election were next month.  That having been said, it's becoming increasingly obvious that he will win with any noticeable economic improvement in 2012.  Romney can beat him in the economic status quo.  If anyone else wins the GOP nomination, they will probably need another 2008-style crash before the election to beat him.

At this point the President would lose if  he failed to campaign for re-election or campaigned ineffectively. The Democrats have yet to harp on Mitt Romney's ideological inconsistencies and his participation in corporate restructuring that on the net destroyed jobs. The Democrats (and especially liberal-leaning media) have unleashed the salvos on other possible GOP nominees  except for Romney. The kid gloves toward him stay on so long as someone else is the front-runner but come off once the campaign begins in earnest.   

In general one can add an average of 6% to the approval rating of an incumbent Governor or Senator at the start of the campaign season to get the percentage of the total vote for the incumbent.  Because the Presidential campaign is basically 50 statewide elections won much as gubernatorial or senatorial races are won, you can expect much the same for an incumbent President. As a strict rule a challenger who ends up winning has a large lead with perhaps lots of undecided and the incumbent cuts into that large lead but not well enough because such a lead for the challenger is simply too much. Of course such shows that the incumbent is wildly unpopular for a good reason -- like being seen as extreme,  inept, aloof, or even corrupt. Add to that, the incumbent almost invariably has shown the ability to campaign for the office and set up a good electoral apparatus, which the challenger rarely does adeptly.

Challengers can carp at will about the incumbent until the nominations are in place. Add to that the incumbent can't operate in campaign mode all the time and is compelled to make decisions, such as budgeting and voting, likely to disappoint some who voted for him. Once the nominations are certain, the incumbent's campaign can dish out the negative campaign against the challenger.  Negative campaigns that question the ability of the challenger to do as effectively may be the last resort -- but that is how Dubya won re-election in 2004.

The argument that the President is an extremist is nothing new; it was used against him in 2008 and proved inadequate. Such is likely to be as ineffective an argument against the President this time as it was against Ronald Reagan in 1984. People who thought that he was disloyal or suspect in loyalty to America, that he was going to take away firearms from people who have veritable fetishes about them, that he was a secret Muslim (with FDR it was that FDR was really a Jew,  which was then about as distant from the political mainstream), or that he would operate as an autocrat are still convinced of that.

The 2012 election will be in part a referendum on foreign policy and economic improvement. The President is solid on foreign policy and military matters. Now for the economy -- can he win with a weak economy?

Absolutely not if the economy tanks. There's just too little to tank. We don't have a corrupt speculative boom  set to implode; the last boom imploded three to four years ago. Slow improvement is the best that anyone can ask for even if it means that things are now less attractive than they were five years ago. FDR was able to get re-elected despite unemployment higher than what President Obama has staring at him.       

Stop comparing Obama to FDR.  FDR saw unemployment drop from 25% in 1933 to 16% in 1936 and he also gained seats in 1934, showing that he and his party had a lot more goodwill with the American people than Obama does. 
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10254
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9124 on: November 23, 2011, 09:28:31 pm »
Ignore


Stop comparing Obama to FDR.  FDR saw unemployment drop from 25% in 1933 to 16% in 1936 and he also gained seats in 1934, showing that he and his party had a lot more goodwill with the American people than Obama does. 

Please stop comparing Barack Obama to Herbert Hoover or Jimmy Carter.

Unemployment is a lagging indicator; FDR took just after the economy bottomed out after a three-year economic meltdown; Barack Obama took over before the end of a year-and-a-half economic meltdown. In 1934 the Republican Party and its front groups had not yet developed  the sort of Orwellian propaganda with deep-pockets support behind it that they used in 2010. That is a huge change in politics, and if that change remains effective in 2012, then President Obama will surely be defeated or at least marginalized.

This depression is hardly as severe as that of 1929-1940... but it could easily have been. The first eighteen months of the 2007-2009 meltdown was as severe as the first eighteen months of the 1929-1933 meltdown. Please give this President some credit for the end of the decline, if nothing more than credit for not making things worse and for promoting some gimmicks to stop the economic bleeding. 
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
Pages: 1 ... 360 361 362 363 364 [365] 366 367 368 369 370 ... 410 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines