Mr. 47%
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:53:49 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Mr. 47%
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Mr. 47%  (Read 3482 times)
Whacker77
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 763


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 22, 2012, 04:25:55 PM »

As someone who vehemently opposed Romney in the primaries, it's taken me some time to warm to him.  I suppose I've reconciled myself to him now and I suspect that's the case with many other conservatives as well.  Reconciled support is never the greatest thing for a candidate, but they've got to do the best they can with what they have.

Having said that, I've noticed a recurring number in the multitude of polls that have been released over the last four months.  Whether it's the horserace or job approval, Obama seems to be the 47% man.  To be sure, a poll every now and then puts Obama above the 47% mark, but they're rare on the national scene and never confirmed.

I bring this number up because history has taught us two general things about presidential races involving incumbents.  First, an incumbent's vote total rarely exceeds his job approval rating.  Second, incumbents are definitely in the danger zone when they poll below 50% this close to an election.

If history serves as a guide once again on these two issues, Obama is probably in more serious trouble than the polls generally indicate.  Now before people say I'm drawing too many conclusions, just review the RCP charts and you'll see how often 47% appears in the horserace and job approval.  It's hard to miss.

I also realize GWB polled around 47% for a time in 2004, but that was his nadir that year and he steadily rebounded as election day moved closer.  In fact, his approval in the exit polls on election day was 53% according to Sean Trende at RCP.  Without a doubt, the economy was in far better shape an improving.

Regardless, it's hard not to notice how consistently Obama polls at or below the 47% mark.  That number doesn't guarantee a defeat because he's just a few points from 50%.  But Obama is also just a few points away from 44% as well.  And if the economy continues to slow into the Fall, it will be tougher and tougher for him to nudge above the 47% line.
Logged
useful idiot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,720


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2012, 05:11:53 PM »

As long as his approval stays out of the 30's it's going to be largely irrelevant to the outcome of the election. There are only two questions that can really be asked at this point: Is there going to be a major event (ie a scandal the media can't obscure, economic depression) between now and November? If not, how large is his margin of victory going to be?
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2012, 05:17:57 PM »

I'd rather be stuck at 47% like Obama is than 44 or 45% like Romney is.
Logged
Whacker77
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 763


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2012, 06:36:49 PM »

Job approval is very critical for incumbent presidents.  Carter ran ahead of his job approval in 1980, but his vote percentage all but matched his job approval on election day.  Almost certainly, if Obama's job approval was over 50%, supporters would be using it as proof the election was all but over.

I also agree 47% for Obama is better than 45% for Romney, but Obama is 100% known to the public.  His 47% number is not the same as Romney's 45% number is.  Obama's number has been forged over three and a half years as president and essentially corresponds with his job approval.  Romney's number has room to grow (or fall) since he's not as well known to the uninformed dopes who make up the vast majority of the voting public.

I'm not saying Obama is doomed because of this job approval number, but I think it's more important than most think.  If history holds form and his vote share doesn't exceed his job approval on election day, he could face trouble.  That's especially true if the economy continues to slow.  It's hard to see Obama becoming more popular if we're teetering on the edge of recession.
Logged
Yank2133
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,387


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2012, 06:41:43 PM »

If polling is any indiction, Mitt's 45% is likely to fall.

The more people learn about him, the less they like.
Logged
Whacker77
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 763


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2012, 07:01:40 PM »

If polling is any indiction, Mitt's 45% is likely to fall.

The more people learn about him, the less they like.

So Romney's likely to do worse in 2012 than the 47% McCain got in 2008?  I find that very hard to believe.
Logged
billbillerson
Eversole
Rookie
**
Posts: 95
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2012, 07:17:41 PM »

If polling is any indiction, Mitt's 45% is likely to fall.

The more people learn about him, the less they like.

So Romney's likely to do worse in 2012 than the 47% McCain got in 2008?  I find that very hard to believe.


bingo. not a chance that this happens.
Logged
Comrade Funk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,136
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -5.91

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2012, 07:38:02 PM »

If polling is any indiction, Mitt's 45% is likely to fall.

The more people learn about him, the less they like.

So Romney's likely to do worse in 2012 than the 47% McCain got in 2008?  I find that very hard to believe.
And you think Obama is stuck with 47%? No, the undecided voters will eventually for for either one, so Obama is still in a good position. It really is irrelevent at this point though.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 22, 2012, 08:33:33 PM »

We also have to remember that at least some of these undecided voters will remain undecided and flat-out not vote. Nobody usually polls at over 50% in the summer anyway.
Logged
ucscgaldamez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 373


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2012, 12:45:28 AM »

I agree with the original poster. Obama is in trouble. That is why he is spending a lot of money defining Romney during the summer. I just had a meeting with over 10 of my college friends who were hardcore Obama fans during 2008 and there was a lot of dissapointment in his performance. He hasn't been great. Period. We know that. Most said they will vote for him but there was some resistance to considering voting for him. If some of those that are dissapointed decide to stay home, Romney wins. There is also a danger for Republicans who think the 47% is what he will get on election day. Many undecided voters and former Obama voters dislike Romney, and they seem to be already saying some of the things Obama wants them to believe, "he cares only for the rich, etc" they may be more likely to vote for Obama on election day as opposed to staying home.

This election really hinges on whether Obama can mobilize and re-energize a substantial amount of people who voted for him (or are more likely to vote for him) who are between 18-39. Republicans should be concerned about this. Only about 4055% of this group are very energized and following the election closely, compared to 70-80% of those over 50. After the conventions, we will be able to better assess what success he is having with this group. I actually think the entertainment industry can assist Obama with this, but I don't know how involved celebrities will be this year compared to 2008. I know Oprah said she won't be as involved.

Obama will likely need an electorate that is D+3 to win. If he is below that, he will likely lose. I think he will lose independents by around 5%.

I think the election will be very close. I really foresee a 49-49 election. It will come down to those swing states. He may even lose the popular vote slightly and win the election. The independents in those swings states are somewhat different than the independents in the south who are strongly against Obama.
Logged
stegosaurus
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 628
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: 1.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 23, 2012, 01:05:11 AM »

The national polls are irrelevant. Romney will run up the score in solid red states, but he has virtually no path to 270.



Obama - 253
Romney - 191

I don't see Romney denies Obama 17 EVs from that lot, given what current polling looks like. Barring major economic downtown, Obama should win re-election.
Logged
WhyteRain
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 949
Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 23, 2012, 11:00:06 AM »

I made this exact point a week or so ago with a new thread:




Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The defense of Obama was "well, Romney's even less popular".
Logged
Whacker77
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 763


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 23, 2012, 11:02:42 AM »

The national polls are irrelevant. Romney will run up the score in solid red states, but he has virtually no path to 270.



Obama - 253
Romney - 191

I don't see Romney denies Obama 17 EVs from that lot, given what current polling looks like. Barring major economic downtown, Obama should win re-election.

That's just crazy to say.  I'm not predicting Romney will win, but to say he has no path is wrong.  The internal data of most recent polls has been very bad for Obama.  Top line numbers are almost always the last to change.  The economic fatigue is just now starting to filter into the headline numbers and we're seeing Romney creep up on Obama.

I suppose you could have written the same thing about Reagan in 1980.  His path to victory didn't look so good in July, yet he won 43 states.  Things can change and the polls will follow, not lead.
Logged
WhyteRain
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 949
Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 23, 2012, 11:11:46 AM »

The national polls are irrelevant. Romney will run up the score in solid red states, but he has virtually no path to 270.

I don't see Romney denies Obama 17 EVs from that lot, given what current polling looks like. Barring major economic downtown, Obama should win re-election.

That's just crazy to say.  I'm not predicting Romney will win, but to say he has no path is wrong.  The internal data of most recent polls has been very bad for Obama.  Top line numbers are almost always the last to change.  The economic fatigue is just now starting to filter into the headline numbers and we're seeing Romney creep up on Obama.

I suppose you could have written the same thing about Reagan in 1980.  His path to victory didn't look so good in July, yet he won 43 states.  Things can change and the polls will follow, not lead.

I agree.  I've said for more than a year that Romney would be the weakest opponent for Obama -- it's why the MSM cleared the path for him by pounding into dust all the "conservative alternatives" -- but if the GOP can keep this election as a "referendum on Obama", then he gets crushed.

[modify:]  Btw, Reagan won 44 states in '80, not 43.
Logged
emailking
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,964
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 23, 2012, 11:18:41 AM »

If history serves as a guide once again on these two issues, Obama is probably in more serious trouble than the polls generally indicate.  Now before people say I'm drawing too many conclusions, just review the RCP charts and you'll see how often 47% appears in the horserace and job approval.  It's hard to miss.

I don't disagree that he's at around 47%. But where I think you're drawing too many conclusions is the premise that history serves as a guide. We do not have anywhere near a statistically useful sample of elections (with polling data) in which the incumbent was below 50%, much less those in which he was below 50% but very near it.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2012, 11:39:26 AM »

If polling is any indiction, Mitt's 45% is likely to fall.

The more people learn about him, the less they like.

So Romney's likely to do worse in 2012 than the 47% McCain got in 2008?  I find that very hard to believe.

No record of military heroism (or martyrdom). McCain didn't have business dealings to defend.
Logged
stegosaurus
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 628
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: 1.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2012, 11:55:40 AM »

The national polls are irrelevant. Romney will run up the score in solid red states, but he has virtually no path to 270.



Obama - 253
Romney - 191

I don't see Romney denies Obama 17 EVs from that lot, given what current polling looks like. Barring major economic downtown, Obama should win re-election.

That's just crazy to say.  I'm not predicting Romney will win, but to say he has no path is wrong.  The internal data of most recent polls has been very bad for Obama.  Top line numbers are almost always the last to change.  The economic fatigue is just now starting to filter into the headline numbers and we're seeing Romney creep up on Obama.

I suppose you could have written the same thing about Reagan in 1980.  His path to victory didn't look so good in July, yet he won 43 states.  Things can change and the polls will follow, not lead.

Economic fatigue sat in two years ago and Romney has failed to capitalize. Without supremely bad economic news that would put states like NC and VA in lean/likely Romney territory (allowing him to double down on OH and FL), it's a very narrow path.



That is the most likely map for a Romney victory, and Romney doesn't have the message or grassroots organization to make that map happen without dreadful economic news.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,713


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2012, 11:58:25 AM »

Looking at an election as a referendum on one candidate without contextualization is generally a poor idea.
Logged
WhyteRain
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 949
Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 23, 2012, 12:10:50 PM »

Looking at an election as a referendum on one candidate without contextualization is generally a poor idea.

Don't worry, the MSM will do all it can to distort the facts. 

I always try to remind myself how powerful the MSM is -- how they destroyed two of my "sure-thing" predictions:  One, that Hillary would crush Obama whose 2008 candidacy I considered a joke, and, two, that the Tea Party would crush Romney in the 2012 GOP race.  Instead, the MSM crushed the mighty Clinton Machine and the mighty Tea Party. 
Logged
Whacker77
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 763


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 23, 2012, 12:25:21 PM »

If history serves as a guide once again on these two issues, Obama is probably in more serious trouble than the polls generally indicate.  Now before people say I'm drawing too many conclusions, just review the RCP charts and you'll see how often 47% appears in the horserace and job approval.  It's hard to miss.

I don't disagree that he's at around 47%. But where I think you're drawing too many conclusions is the premise that history serves as a guide. We do not have anywhere near a statistically useful sample of elections (with polling data) in which the incumbent was below 50%, much less those in which he was below 50% but very near it.

Fair enough.
Logged
Whacker77
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 763


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2012, 12:29:32 PM »

If polling is any indiction, Mitt's 45% is likely to fall.

The more people learn about him, the less they like.

So Romney's likely to do worse in 2012 than the 47% McCain got in 2008?  I find that very hard to believe.

No record of military heroism (or martyrdom). McCain didn't have business dealings to defend.

So you think it's possible Obama beats Romney 55-45 or 56-44?  Sorry, but that's just fantasy.  Not that Obama will win, but that he can win a significant victory with the current economic conditions.  Nominal Republicans are not going to abandon Romney to vote for Obama.

Anyone who thinks McCain was a popular nominee for the Republican party is smoking some really good stuff.  He was anything but.  Romney may not be popular either, but the desire to beat Obama is over the top and the economy stinks.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 23, 2012, 01:21:07 PM »

If polling is any indiction, Mitt's 45% is likely to fall.

The more people learn about him, the less they like.

So Romney's likely to do worse in 2012 than the 47% McCain got in 2008?  I find that very hard to believe.

No record of military heroism (or martyrdom). McCain didn't have business dealings to defend.

So you think it's possible Obama beats Romney 55-45 or 56-44?  Sorry, but that's just fantasy.  Not that Obama will win, but that he can win a significant victory with the current economic conditions.  Nominal Republicans are not going to abandon Romney to vote for Obama.

Anyone who thinks McCain was a popular nominee for the Republican party is smoking some really good stuff.  He was anything but.  Romney may not be popular either, but the desire to beat Obama is over the top and the economy stinks.

I did not say that Obama beats Romney 55-45 or 56-44. I said that nothing about Mitt Romney says that he has any strong appeal that John McCain had. It will be hard for Mitt Romney to make as catastrophic a choice for VP as did McCain, which might give an electoral result that looks much like Obama vs. McCain.

Sure, the economy stinks -- but it also stank in 1936 and the incumbent President won. Lowered expectations on the US economy four years after the bottom might not have the same effect as three and a half years after a less-severe meltdown, and people might not give as much credit to President Obama in 2012 as they gave FDR in 1936... but there is much more leeway for re-election of the President.   

Oh, yes -- there was much hatred among America's economic elite to "That Man" and his "Jew (sic!) Deal".  (Hey, folks -- I'm simply repeating the callow term then in use. Jew is always rightly a noun and never an adjective,  and Judaism is arguably the most humane religion that humanity has ever known, at least in modern times). I also remember the visceral contempt that many liberals had for Ronald Reagan in 1984 and how strong that was against a President whose political skills are similar to those of President Obama.
Logged
Whacker77
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 763


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 23, 2012, 02:11:46 PM »

The suggestion was that if anyone had room to fall further in the polls, it was Romney from his current 45% perch.  If that were to be the case, it would signal Obama winning by 10 points or so.  That's not going to happen.

As for 1936, the situations are similar, but not so much.  FDR won a decisive victory because there was a widespread belief things were improving.  After all, unemployment had gone from 25% to 15%.  In terms of 1984, once again there was a widespread belief things were improving.  It was morning in America.

Obama can't run on a view that things are improving so comparing 2012 to 1936 is a stretch.  Unemployment has gone from 8% to 10% back to 8%.  It's probably even rising again.  And I would also say Obama's failure to convince most Americans to believe in his programs suggests his political skills aren't as good as Reagan's.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 23, 2012, 04:39:26 PM »

The suggestion was that if anyone had room to fall further in the polls, it was Romney from his current 45% perch.  If that were to be the case, it would signal Obama winning by 10 points or so.  That's not going to happen.

As for 1936, the situations are similar, but not so much.  FDR won a decisive victory because there was a widespread belief things were improving.  After all, unemployment had gone from 25% to 15%.  In terms of 1984, once again there was a widespread belief things were improving.  It was morning in America.

Obama can't run on a view that things are improving so comparing 2012 to 1936 is a stretch.  Unemployment has gone from 8% to 10% back to 8%.  It's probably even rising again.  And I would also say Obama's failure to convince most Americans to believe in his programs suggests his political skills aren't as good as Reagan's.

The recent economic meltdown parallels the first half of the three-year meltdown that began in the autumn of 1929.  Causes were much the same. it may be that our institutions (bank deposit insurance, welfare, unemployment insurance, Social Security) are much stronger than they were in 1932 if they were available. President Obama deserves no credit for those. But he and the Democratic majorities of the 111th Congress that primed the pump.  The 112th Congress is a travesty of good government unless one accepts its ideology at face value. 

Unemployment is a lagging indicator. Firms are slow to fire (maybe our sales force needs to work harder) at the start of an economic downturn and slow to hire at the end of the downturn.
Logged
Averroës Nix
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,289
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 23, 2012, 04:39:33 PM »

Looking at an election as a referendum on one candidate without contextualization is generally a poor idea.

Don't worry, the MSM will do all it can to distort the facts.  

I always try to remind myself how powerful the MSM is -- how they destroyed two of my "sure-thing" predictions:  One, that Hillary would crush Obama whose 2008 candidacy I considered a joke, and, two, that the Tea Party would crush Romney in the 2012 GOP race.  Instead, the MSM crushed the mighty Clinton Machine and the mighty Tea Party.  

So the "MSM" serves as your bogeyman whenever your predictions go wrong?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.07 seconds with 13 queries.