Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 21, 2020, 09:07:10 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 327 328 329 330 331 [332] 333 334 335 336 337 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1028521 times)
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8275 on: July 17, 2011, 07:00:52 pm »

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.

No President gets reelected with a 40% approval rating. 
Prove it.

Here:

2004 Bush 48% Approval Won Reelection
1996 Clinton 54% Approval Won Reelection
1992 Bush 34% Approval Lost Reelection
1984 Reagan 58% Approval Won Reelection
1980 Carter 37% Approval Lost Reelection
1976 Ford 45% Approval Lost Reelection
1972 Nixon 56% Approval Won Reelection
1964 Johnson 74% Approval Won Reelection
1956 Eisenhower 68% Approval Won Reelection
1948 Truman stopped polling after July 1948



Looking at Bush and Ford, looks like 46-47% is the limit.

About right.

Having an effective campaign apparatus and not having an effective campaign apparatus may have been the difference between Ford 1976 and Bush 2004. Ford had no idea of how to run an effective campaign beyond a Congressional district, and the effective campaign apparatus (CREEP) of Nixon in 1972 was unusable. The Ford campaign made incredible blunders in using its resources. Ford at most would have won a nailbiter; he was not a great President, and the inflationary economy in a recession (stagflation) was not good for convincing anyone of the economic stewardship of the Administration. Dubya may have been a dreadful President, but the damage yet to do its damage had yet to manifest itself, and he got re-elected. He had been elected... sort of... but his campaign machine knew what to do.  

Add 5% to the polling for 2004 and you get the electoral result. Add 3% to the polling for 1976 and you get the result. Such is the difference between a President who had no idea of how to get elected outside a Congressional district and one had shown that he could be elected beforehand. (Of course, had the Iraq war gone badly or the speculative boom gone bust before the election, then he would have lost. He could have lost much like Jimmy Carter in 1976 had such happened).

The others:

1952 -- Dwight Eisenhower was wildly popular, but a natural ceiling of about 62% of the popular vote exists for any incumbent. Eisenhower didn't have much of a campaign, and didn't need one against the Democrat that he had defeated handily. Eisenhower fell short of that campaign largely because Southern segregationists distrusted him. They were morally wrong, but right about their observation.

1964 -- LBJ ran against someone easily depicted as a reckless extremist. He didn't need much of a campaign. The 62% ceiling for an incumbent President applies.

1972 -- Even with a ruthless campaign, Nixon was able to get 'only' about a 5% gain against someone that his campaign (and much else) depicted as an extremist.

1976 -- See above. Ford could have won against a weak challenger who wasn't that different in ideology.

1980 -- The Carter Presidency was certifiably of the weakest in post-WWII history, with few achievements to create a record and stagflation to wreck whatever chance he had of getting re-elected. The Carter campaign did the best that it could with the material that it had, gaining about 4% in the popular vote. There was an independent candidate (John Anderson) who might have cut into his vote share. Independent and third-party candidates can muck things up, and John Anderson may have won many votes of disgruntled Carter voters from 1976 who couldn't quite vote for Ronald Reagan. This one gets murky beyond saying that Carter would never have won in 1980.

1984 -- Reagan won about 58% of the popular vote, which is much less than the norm for the landslide in electoral votes that he got. It's hard to remember the re-election campaign of Ronald Reagan, so it probably wasn't great. Walter Mondale was no extremist -- a very conventional Democrat -- so the electoral circumstances weren't quite those of 1964 or 1972. No gain -- but a President who achieves his promises will win.

1992 and 1996 -- Third-party and independent candidacies muck things up. I can draw no conclusions, except that Bill Clinton would have won a bigger share of the popular vote without Ross Perot around.

2004. See above.

2012. Just watch events unfold. The electoral machine of Barack Obama and a repetition of the proved competence of this politician as a campaigner should give him about a 5% gain against his approval rating against someone that his staff can't dismiss as an extremist (probably Romney, maybe Huntsman, Pawlenty, Giuliani, or Huckabee) or about 7% against someone that his campaign can depict as an extremist (names withheld for reasons of decency). Of course opponents count, but some things about this President really are set in stone.  

Obama is vastly overrated as a campaigner.  If he was that great, he would have been able to go out in 2010 and sharply reduce Democratic losses.  In 2008, he ran a mediocre campaign and was only saved by the fact that the unemployment rate increased by over a percentage point during the campaign and that consumer confidence was so low.  No incumbent party survives that. 

Overrated?

1. He won Indiana, a state that Republican nominees for President simply do not lose. Sure, the President won under freakish circumstances, but the state was close all summer and fall.

2. He won Virginia, a state that Republican nominees for President simply do not lose, by a substantial margin. Virginia did not have one of the most ravaged economies in America.

3. He won North Carolina, a state that democrats had largely written off since 1980.

4. He did unusually well in Suburbia, suggesting that he had found a weakness in the usual appeals of Republicans in Suburbia -- tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts because your boss will be impressed.

This politician knows how to recognize weaknesses in his opposition and exploit them for every advantage more effectively than the usual nominee. He did not seek out opportunities that no longer existed.  Basically, he didn't campaign to win states that were out of reach that Bill Clinton won handily.

But even if you see his weaknesses as a politician -- basically that he can't successfully appeal to people in rural and small-town America -- you must admit that his campaign applied advertising funds effectively, cutting them off when they were futile and where the President was so far ahead (in states) that further saturation might be the difference between winning 56% of the vote and 59% of the vote.

He does not win where government services are available cheaply, so I expect him to do badly in the Great Plains states.

2010 -- he campaigned little. He was too busy with Congress. In 2012 that will be very different.

He didnt win Indiana and Virginia because he is a good politician or campaigner, he won because the economy was so bad nationally. 
Logged
Dirty Dan
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,223
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8276 on: July 17, 2011, 07:40:37 pm »

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.

No President gets reelected with a 40% approval rating. 
Prove it.

Here:

2004 Bush 48% Approval Won Reelection
1996 Clinton 54% Approval Won Reelection
1992 Bush 34% Approval Lost Reelection
1984 Reagan 58% Approval Won Reelection
1980 Carter 37% Approval Lost Reelection
1976 Ford 45% Approval Lost Reelection
1972 Nixon 56% Approval Won Reelection
1964 Johnson 74% Approval Won Reelection
1956 Eisenhower 68% Approval Won Reelection
1948 Truman stopped polling after July 1948



Looking at Bush and Ford, looks like 46-47% is the limit.

About right.

Having an effective campaign apparatus and not having an effective campaign apparatus may have been the difference between Ford 1976 and Bush 2004. Ford had no idea of how to run an effective campaign beyond a Congressional district, and the effective campaign apparatus (CREEP) of Nixon in 1972 was unusable. The Ford campaign made incredible blunders in using its resources. Ford at most would have won a nailbiter; he was not a great President, and the inflationary economy in a recession (stagflation) was not good for convincing anyone of the economic stewardship of the Administration. Dubya may have been a dreadful President, but the damage yet to do its damage had yet to manifest itself, and he got re-elected. He had been elected... sort of... but his campaign machine knew what to do.   

Add 5% to the polling for 2004 and you get the electoral result. Add 3% to the polling for 1976 and you get the result. Such is the difference between a President who had no idea of how to get elected outside a Congressional district and one had shown that he could be elected beforehand. (Of course, had the Iraq war gone badly or the speculative boom gone bust before the election, then he would have lost. He could have lost much like Jimmy Carter in 1976 had such happened).

The others:

1952 -- Dwight Eisenhower was wildly popular, but a natural ceiling of about 62% of the popular vote exists for any incumbent. Eisenhower didn't have much of a campaign, and didn't need one against the Democrat that he had defeated handily. Eisenhower fell short of that campaign largely because Southern segregationists distrusted him. They were morally wrong, but right about their observation.

1964 -- LBJ ran against someone easily depicted as a reckless extremist. He didn't need much of a campaign. The 62% ceiling for an incumbent President applies.

1972 -- Even with a ruthless campaign, Nixon was able to get 'only' about a 5% gain against someone that his campaign (and much else) depicted as an extremist.

1976 -- See above. Ford could have won against a weak challenger who wasn't that different in ideology.

1980 -- The Carter Presidency was certifiably of the weakest in post-WWII history, with few achievements to create a record and stagflation to wreck whatever chance he had of getting re-elected. The Carter campaign did the best that it could with the material that it had, gaining about 4% in the popular vote. There was an independent candidate (John Anderson) who might have cut into his vote share. Independent and third-party candidates can muck things up, and John Anderson may have won many votes of disgruntled Carter voters from 1976 who couldn't quite vote for Ronald Reagan. This one gets murky beyond saying that Carter would never have won in 1980.

1984 -- Reagan won about 58% of the popular vote, which is much less than the norm for the landslide in electoral votes that he got. It's hard to remember the re-election campaign of Ronald Reagan, so it probably wasn't great. Walter Mondale was no extremist -- a very conventional Democrat -- so the electoral circumstances weren't quite those of 1964 or 1972. No gain -- but a President who achieves his promises will win.

1992 and 1996 -- Third-party and independent candidacies muck things up. I can draw no conclusions, except that Bill Clinton would have won a bigger share of the popular vote without Ross Perot around.

2004. See above.

2012. Just watch events unfold. The electoral machine of Barack Obama and a repetition of the proved competence of this politician as a campaigner should give him about a 5% gain against his approval rating against someone that his staff can't dismiss as an extremist (probably Romney, maybe Huntsman, Pawlenty, Giuliani, or Huckabee) or about 7% against someone that his campaign can depict as an extremist (names withheld for reasons of decency). Of course opponents count, but some things about this President really are set in stone. 

Obama is vastly overrated as a campaigner.  If he was that great, he would have been able to go out in 2010 and sharply reduce Democratic losses.  In 2008, he ran a mediocre campaign and was only saved by the fact that the unemployment rate increased by over a percentage point during the campaign and that consumer confidence was so low.  No incumbent party survives that. 

Overrated?

1. He won Indiana, a state that Republican nominees for President simply do not lose. Sure, the President won under freakish circumstances, but the state was close all summer and fall.

2. He won Virginia, a state that Republican nominees for President simply do not lose, by a substantial margin. Virginia did not have one of the most ravaged economies in America.

3. He won North Carolina, a state that democrats had largely written off since 1980.

4. He did unusually well in Suburbia, suggesting that he had found a weakness in the usual appeals of Republicans in Suburbia -- tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts because your boss will be impressed.

This politician knows how to recognize weaknesses in his opposition and exploit them for every advantage more effectively than the usual nominee. He did not seek out opportunities that no longer existed.  Basically, he didn't campaign to win states that were out of reach that Bill Clinton won handily.

But even if you see his weaknesses as a politician -- basically that he can't successfully appeal to people in rural and small-town America -- you must admit that his campaign applied advertising funds effectively, cutting them off when they were futile and where the President was so far ahead (in states) that further saturation might be the difference between winning 56% of the vote and 59% of the vote.

He does not win where government services are available cheaply, so I expect him to do badly in the Great Plains states.

2010 -- he campaigned little. He was too busy with Congress. In 2012 that will be very different.

He didnt win Indiana and Virginia because he is a good politician or campaigner, he won because the economy was so bad nationally. 

That seems to be an oversimplification.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8277 on: July 17, 2011, 07:52:38 pm »

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.

No President gets reelected with a 40% approval rating. 
Prove it.

Here:

2004 Bush 48% Approval Won Reelection
1996 Clinton 54% Approval Won Reelection
1992 Bush 34% Approval Lost Reelection
1984 Reagan 58% Approval Won Reelection
1980 Carter 37% Approval Lost Reelection
1976 Ford 45% Approval Lost Reelection
1972 Nixon 56% Approval Won Reelection
1964 Johnson 74% Approval Won Reelection
1956 Eisenhower 68% Approval Won Reelection
1948 Truman stopped polling after July 1948



You have look at when they had these numbers.  Both Reagan and Clinton hit 37% in their first term, on Gallup.  Both were in an upswing at this point, well off their lows.
Logged
Bull Moose Base
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8278 on: July 17, 2011, 08:00:36 pm »

Has there ever been a nominee as strongly favored and well-positioned as Hillary who didn't win the nomination?  If you want to pretend Obama's political skill is comparable to that of Ford (who never won a race bigger than a congressional district) knock yourself out.
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8279 on: July 17, 2011, 08:48:03 pm »

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.

No President gets reelected with a 40% approval rating. 
Prove it.

Here:

2004 Bush 48% Approval Won Reelection
1996 Clinton 54% Approval Won Reelection
1992 Bush 34% Approval Lost Reelection
1984 Reagan 58% Approval Won Reelection
1980 Carter 37% Approval Lost Reelection
1976 Ford 45% Approval Lost Reelection
1972 Nixon 56% Approval Won Reelection
1964 Johnson 74% Approval Won Reelection
1956 Eisenhower 68% Approval Won Reelection
1948 Truman stopped polling after July 1948



You have look at when they had these numbers.  Both Reagan and Clinton hit 37% in their first term, on Gallup.  Both were in an upswing at this point, well off their lows.

They had these numbers in October of their reelection for the most part. 
Logged
"'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"
DarthNader
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 484


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8280 on: July 17, 2011, 10:35:43 pm »

Has there ever been a nominee as strongly favored and well-positioned as Hillary who didn't win the nomination?  If you want to pretend Obama's political skill is comparable to that of Ford (who never won a race bigger than a congressional district) knock yourself out.

Excluding incumbents who dropped out (Truman, LBJ) or candidates who self-destructed (Hart), Muskie comes to mind. And nobody he ran against (certainly not McGovern) had anywhere near the charisma of Obama or even Edwards. Kennedy also started as a near-shoo-in against Carter, though primarying an incumbent is always tricky.

Unless they're under siege in some dramatic way, I think most presidents start off with the presumption that they are political savants; it's like the early SNL joke about Ford, "If He's So Dumb, How Come He's President?" The Bush I team were considered Machivellian geniuses as late as the Clarence Thomas hearings in Oct. '91. This William Safire column from June '80 notes the "conventional wisdom" that Carter is "an inept president but a great political campaigner."

Logged
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,090
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.94, S: 1.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8281 on: July 17, 2011, 10:43:45 pm »

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.

No President gets reelected with a 40% approval rating. 
Prove it.

Here:

2004 Bush 48% Approval Won Reelection
1996 Clinton 54% Approval Won Reelection
1992 Bush 34% Approval Lost Reelection
1984 Reagan 58% Approval Won Reelection
1980 Carter 37% Approval Lost Reelection
1976 Ford 45% Approval Lost Reelection
1972 Nixon 56% Approval Won Reelection
1964 Johnson 74% Approval Won Reelection
1956 Eisenhower 68% Approval Won Reelection
1948 Truman stopped polling after July 1948



You have look at when they had these numbers.  Both Reagan and Clinton hit 37% in their first term, on Gallup.  Both were in an upswing at this point, well off their lows.
The quality of the opponent also matters. I think Obama's approval would need to drop under 35% for him to lose to Palin, but only under 45% to lose to Romney, maybe even higher.
Logged
Bull Moose Base
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8282 on: July 17, 2011, 10:53:15 pm »

Has there ever been a nominee as strongly favored and well-positioned as Hillary who didn't win the nomination?  If you want to pretend Obama's political skill is comparable to that of Ford (who never won a race bigger than a congressional district) knock yourself out.

Excluding incumbents who dropped out (Truman, LBJ) or candidates who self-destructed (Hart), Muskie comes to mind. And nobody he ran against (certainly not McGovern) had anywhere near the charisma of Obama or even Edwards. Kennedy also started as a near-shoo-in against Carter, though primarying an incumbent is always tricky.

Unless they're under siege in some dramatic way, I think most presidents start off with the presumption that they are political savants; it's like the early SNL joke about Ford, "If He's So Dumb, How Come He's President?" The Bush I team were considered Machivellian geniuses as late as the Clarence Thomas hearings in Oct. '91. This William Safire column from June '80 notes the "conventional wisdom" that Carter is "an inept president but a great political campaigner."


There are three incumbents on that list who lost re-election.  Safire's hyperbole notwithstanding, none were remotely close to Obama in political talent.  Two of the presidents lost to opponents who were way more talented campaigners, the other had never won a race bigger than a CD.  And none were dealing with a conspicuously obstructionist congress.  This doesn't mean he can't lose or his approval rating isn't a factor.  But it does mean we should hesitate to extrapolate x is the approval rating cut-off from that very limited data from dissimilar circumstances.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8283 on: July 17, 2011, 11:19:45 pm »

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.

No President gets reelected with a 40% approval rating. 
Prove it.

Here:

2004 Bush 48% Approval Won Reelection
1996 Clinton 54% Approval Won Reelection
1992 Bush 34% Approval Lost Reelection
1984 Reagan 58% Approval Won Reelection
1980 Carter 37% Approval Lost Reelection
1976 Ford 45% Approval Lost Reelection
1972 Nixon 56% Approval Won Reelection
1964 Johnson 74% Approval Won Reelection
1956 Eisenhower 68% Approval Won Reelection
1948 Truman stopped polling after July 1948



You have look at when they had these numbers.  Both Reagan and Clinton hit 37% in their first term, on Gallup.  Both were in an upswing at this point, well off their lows.

What will matter more is where the President is in October 2012. One cannot predict that. One can predict, however, that he will need an approval rating in the high 40s to have a good chance at being re-elected. 48% or higher? He wins. Dubya won with that.

It doesn't matter how he gets to where he is unless it is a late free-fall (in such a case, everyone will know what is going on). This will be after substantial campaigning.

The "add 6" rule that I have derived from what Nate Silver says about incumbent Senators and Governors winning in their states applies to the beginning of a campaign season -- as an average -- for an average campaigner, with average luck on foreign affairs and economics, with average ability (for the office) as a campaigner, and an average quality of campaign staff for the office -- and an opponent of "average" ability and appropriateness for the office. The Presidency is in effect a contest of one mayoral race (District of Columbia), five congressional races (Maine and Nebraska), and fifty statewide Gubernatorial or Senatorial races.   

There might be other ways in which to lose a re-election bid for President, but since 1908 those have been five of thirteen. The losers are:


1. William Howard Taft, 1908. Not a great President; he faced a challenge from his own Party from someone who had been a certifiably-great President.

2. Herbert Hoover, 1932.  Gravely mishandled the economic meltdown of 1929-1932.

3. Gerald Ford, 1976. He had never run for any statewide office, and it shows.

4. Jimmy Carter, 1980. Underachiever as President. Stagflation and the Iranian hostage situation hurt, but any one of those three characteristics should have made him a one-term President.

5. George W. Bush, 1992. Rode the record of one of the most effective Presidents but didn't know what to do after the fall of Communism and defeating Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8284 on: July 18, 2011, 12:32:07 am »

The only difference between the two is that things are not looking up for Obama. In fact, there's a chance things will get worse. He has the luxury of the GOP running a bunch of crazies that he could beat with a 40% approval rating on election day.

No President gets reelected with a 40% approval rating. 
Prove it.

Here:

2004 Bush 48% Approval Won Reelection
1996 Clinton 54% Approval Won Reelection
1992 Bush 34% Approval Lost Reelection
1984 Reagan 58% Approval Won Reelection
1980 Carter 37% Approval Lost Reelection
1976 Ford 45% Approval Lost Reelection
1972 Nixon 56% Approval Won Reelection
1964 Johnson 74% Approval Won Reelection
1956 Eisenhower 68% Approval Won Reelection
1948 Truman stopped polling after July 1948



You have look at when they had these numbers.  Both Reagan and Clinton hit 37% in their first term, on Gallup.  Both were in an upswing at this point, well off their lows.

They had these numbers in October of their reelection for the most part. 

This isn't October 2012.  Smiley  I try to do point in time comparisons.  Yes, if Obama is at 62% in October 2012, he'll probably win.  Yes, if he is 38% in October 2012, he'll probably lose.  It does not follow that we can tell that today.
Logged
"'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"
DarthNader
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 484


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8285 on: July 18, 2011, 02:57:46 am »
« Edited: July 18, 2011, 03:02:45 am by DarthNader »

There are three incumbents on that list who lost re-election.  Safire's hyperbole notwithstanding, none were remotely close to Obama in political talent.  Two of the presidents lost to opponents who were way more talented campaigners, the other had never won a race bigger than a CD.  And none were dealing with a conspicuously obstructionist congress.  This doesn't mean he can't lose or his approval rating isn't a factor.  But it does mean we should hesitate to extrapolate x is the approval rating cut-off from that very limited data from dissimilar circumstances.

Is Obama more of a political talent than Ford, Carter or Bush 1? Yeah, almost certainly (not that this is a high bar to clear). But again, at the start of the '92 election, Bush was not thought of as a political no-talent but as a guy who decimated Dukakis after trailing by 17 points. Carter was perceived as an ex-peanut farmer who became president kinda miraculously after serving a single gubernatorial term. "Safire's hyperbole" was not his own view, but a recitation of the CW about Carter - this Guardian postmortem on the campaign describes "electioneering" as the "one skill" Carter "was reputed to have." Basically, anyone talented enough to get elected president is going to be thought of as a highly talented campaigner. Obama's really not unique in that regard.

In point of fact, Ford and Bush did have hostile opposition congresses, which they tried to run against, Truman-style, before moving on to other strategies (check their convention acceptance speeches).
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8286 on: July 18, 2011, 09:51:47 am »

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45, u.

Disapprove 54%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 24%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, u.

Logged
Bull Moose Base
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8287 on: July 18, 2011, 04:14:31 pm »

There are three incumbents on that list who lost re-election.  Safire's hyperbole notwithstanding, none were remotely close to Obama in political talent.  Two of the presidents lost to opponents who were way more talented campaigners, the other had never won a race bigger than a CD.  And none were dealing with a conspicuously obstructionist congress.  This doesn't mean he can't lose or his approval rating isn't a factor.  But it does mean we should hesitate to extrapolate x is the approval rating cut-off from that very limited data from dissimilar circumstances.

Is Obama more of a political talent than Ford, Carter or Bush 1? Yeah, almost certainly (not that this is a high bar to clear). But again, at the start of the '92 election, Bush was not thought of as a political no-talent but as a guy who decimated Dukakis after trailing by 17 points. Carter was perceived as an ex-peanut farmer who became president kinda miraculously after serving a single gubernatorial term. "Safire's hyperbole" was not his own view, but a recitation of the CW about Carter - this Guardian postmortem on the campaign describes "electioneering" as the "one skill" Carter "was reputed to have." Basically, anyone talented enough to get elected president is going to be thought of as a highly talented campaigner. Obama's really not unique in that regard.

In point of fact, Ford and Bush did have hostile opposition congresses, which they tried to run against, Truman-style, before moving on to other strategies (check their convention acceptance speeches).

Bush Sr had beaten an inept national candidate Mike Dukakis, then faced Bill Clinton for re-election. Jimmy Carter had beaten a fairly weak candidate who'd never won more than a CD and pardoned Nixon without explaining himself, then faced Reagan for re-election.  Carter's primary win wasn't unimpressive but nowhere close to what Obama pulled off beating Hillary Clinton for the nomination.  And whichever Republican he faces won't be nearly as tough as Reagan or Clinton.

I don't believe the Democratic congress in 76 and 92 was perceived as anywhere close to as obstructionist or radical as this GOP one is so the fact that Ford or Bush Sr tried to swipe at them tells me little.  Simply put, Ford losing with 45% approval doesn't convince me Obama can't win with lower approval.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8288 on: July 19, 2011, 08:50:37 am »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44, -1.

Disapprove 54%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 24%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, u.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8289 on: July 19, 2011, 12:47:43 pm »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44, -1.

Disapprove 54%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 24%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, u.


This looks like big, real slippage.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8290 on: July 19, 2011, 02:15:58 pm »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44, -1.

Disapprove 54%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 24%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, u.


This looks like big, real slippage.

I take it you are being sarcastic.  Maybe we have some polarization, but I'd still a few days.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8291 on: July 19, 2011, 02:35:07 pm »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44, -1.

Disapprove 54%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 24%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, u.


This looks like big, real slippage.

I take it you are being sarcastic.  Maybe we have some polarization, but I'd still a few days.

No sarcasm. I don't understand why the slippage is there, but it can be real before anyone has a viable explanation.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,447
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8292 on: July 19, 2011, 02:43:51 pm »

I'd presume that Obama's problem here is the budget negotiation. Not that I think Republicans are winning -- instead, I presume both Republicans and Obama are losing.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8293 on: July 19, 2011, 03:40:51 pm »


No sarcasm. I don't understand why the slippage is there, but it can be real before anyone has a viable explanation.

The bad sample at the start of the week that dropped out.  It inflated Obama's good numbers a bit.  When it drops out, it looks like his numbers were lower.  I'm looking at greater polarization, with both "Strongly" numbers going up from where they were, at least before the bad sample.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8294 on: July 19, 2011, 05:08:47 pm »

I'd presume that Obama's problem here is the budget negotiation. Not that I think Republicans are winning -- instead, I presume both Republicans and Obama are losing.

Possible. I see nobody coming out of these budget negotiations unscathed. It looks like a lose-lose proposition for everyone.
Logged
Ben Romney
Hillary2012
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 395
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8295 on: July 19, 2011, 05:44:31 pm »

Generic GOP 47%
Barack Obama 41%

http://www.rasmussenreports.co​m/public_content/politics/elec​tions/election_2012/election_2​012_presidential_election/gene​ric_presidential_ballot/electi​on_2012_generic_presidential_b​allot
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8296 on: July 19, 2011, 07:59:28 pm »

Generic GOP 47%
Barack Obama 41%

http://www.rasmussenreports.co​m/public_content/politics/elec​tions/election_2012/election_2​012_presidential_election/gene​ric_presidential_ballot/electi​on_2012_generic_presidential_b​allot

That figure is surprising.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,525
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8297 on: July 20, 2011, 03:02:41 am »

Not really. It's a generic R, not any named candidate.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,912
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8298 on: July 20, 2011, 08:48:16 am »


Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44, u.

Disapprove 54%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 24%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 41%, -1.

Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8299 on: July 20, 2011, 08:51:09 am »

Generic GOP 47%
Barack Obama 41%

http://www.rasmussenreports.co​m/public_content/politics/elec​tions/election_2012/election_2​012_presidential_election/gene​ric_presidential_ballot/electi​on_2012_generic_presidential_b​allot

Basically it is Barack Obama against someone who doesn't exist -- someone with no regional identity, someone who can bring economic miracles (like restoring the health of the housing industry promptly), and able to satisfy the Tea Party base without offending "moderates" while peeling away Democratic-leaning independent voters.  

I can think of a perfect island. It is spectacularly beautiful, has a pleasant climate, good harbors, attractive and friendly natives, and no pirates or tropical diseases. Its location is 40 North Latitude and 160 West Longitude. Good as it is, it must have the quality of existence.  

Of course there is no such island.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 327 328 329 330 331 [332] 333 334 335 336 337 ... 410 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC