Obama might be in trouble for 2012

[soccerballtux]

I think it goes without saying that we all need to be realistic about Obama's chances for 2012...

 

[Jhhnn]

Also, I'm gonna be totally serious for a moment here, OK?
Bush was absolutely horrible in his first term, and he still got reelected. So just sit and think about that for a minute.

Not really. He used fear and bloodlust to exploit the biggest political windfall since Pearl Harbor, created false prosperity with the Ownership Society & taxcut fever... played the electorate the way Clapton plays the guitar.

He made it look good, and with Republicans, perception trumps reality every time.

 

[ProfJohn]

Also, I'm gonna be totally serious for a moment here, OK?
Bush was absolutely horrible in his first term, and he still got reelected. So just sit and think about that for a minute.

Compare to Obama Bush's first term was brilliant.

Lower unemployment, lower deficit, stronger economy and in 2004 the Iraq war was still a plus or at worst a write off.

It wasn't until 2005 and later that Bush fell off the tracks and it really wasn't until the collapse of the economy in 2008 that he became a 'bad' president.

Unless of course you are a lefty in which case Bush is the worst President ever for starting the Iraq war and having a high deficit, but at the same time Obama gets a free pass for continuing Iraq and having a worst deficit.

You know you are in trouble when people start thinking back to the Bush years and how much better off they were then.

 

[MotF Bane]

That's not really how elections work. Not only do the majority of voters have to not want to vote for the President, they have to WANT to vote for the alternative.

This.

 

[fskimospy]

Wrong.

Elections with a sitting president come down to ONE thing. Does that president deserve a second term, period.

The chances that the Republicans are going to nominate someone so awful that people would rather have a bad president over the alternative is virtually nil.

You lefties are living in fantasy land dreaming of Palin or Huckabee or Bachman as the GOP nominee. The GOP has a great track record of picking winning candidates (McCain was actually ahead until the banking crisis) and any dreams of Palin or Huckabee are just that, dreams.

Hahahaha, talk about a fantasy land. Obama was leading for nearly the entirety of the campaign with the exception of the time immediately following the Republican convention, and Obama was already moving back into the lead by the time Lehman brothers failed.

Elections on an incumbent president are largely a referendum on the sitting president, but that's hardly all of it. Of course I have no idea why we are listening to electoral projections from the guy who thought the Republicans were sitting pretty in 2006, and seems (from this post) to think that McCain was going to win in 2008.

I think Pro-Jo just always thinks Republicans are going to win.

 

[ProfJohn]

Since you guys are fools let me post what Nate Silver has to say.
With a cute little graphic for you to follow along with too.

As I said, anything below 50 (actually 49) and Obama WILL lose. Although it is possible that Obama could win with a 47 or 48 due to higher turn out related to his race and all that.

The simple fact is that if the election were held today Obama would lose, but history tells us that he has a slight chance of turning things around and winning.

Of the 5 presidents with approval below 50% at this point before an election 3 of them did go on to win, but two of the winners were sitting right at 50% while Obama is sitting at 45%. It is hard to tell from the graph, but it looks like only one President with a rating below 45% at this point was able to win re-election.

So Obama's chances range from 3 out of 5 to 1 out of 5 and are probably closer to 1 out of 3.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/approval-ratings-and-re-election-odds/

 

[manimal]

Didn't we already have a thread on this just recently? Polls are a lagging indicator of the economy. Employment numbers are going up. There's a long way to go.

yup


too soon




also those numbers are influenced by gas prices..

 

[fskimospy]

Since you guys are fools let me post what Nate Silver has to say.
With a cute little graphic for you to follow along with too.

As I said, anything below 50 (actually 49) and Obama WILL lose. Although it is possible that Obama could win with a 47 or 48 due to higher turn out related to his race and all that.

The simple fact is that if the election were held today Obama would lose, but history tells us that he has a slight chance of turning things around and winning.

Of the 5 presidents with approval below 50% at this point before an election 3 of them did go on to win, but two of the winners were sitting right at 50% while Obama is sitting at 45%. It is hard to tell from the graph, but it looks like only one President with a rating below 45% at this point was able to win re-election.

So Obama's chances range from 3 out of 5 to 1 out of 5 and are probably closer to 1 out of 3.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/approval-ratings-and-re-election-odds/

Pro-Jo, you are retarded. You didn't even read the post. Not only does our good friend Nate say that numbers this far out are basically pointless, but he projects that 12 months out an incumbent president with an approval rate of 40% still has about a 40% chance of winning. Ie: closer to the election than now with a worse approval rating.

Silver rates Obama's chances at 1 in 3 if he has a 45% rating ON THE DAY OF THE ELECTION, not now.

Seriously man, you're embarrassing yourself. If you're trying to argue you probably shouldn't quote something that disproves your point.

 

[jackschmittusa]

ProfJohn

I actually lost a bet with a UPS driver, having bet that GWB was so bad he couldn't possibly be elected again.

And the people need to get over the fantasy that drilling more somehow gives us more oil. All of the oil we produce goes up for sale on the global market. Some of it gets bought here and stays here, but it could go anywhere if the bids are right. A lot of our best crude is sold at high margin, then the oil companies buy high sulfur crude cheaper from other countries. The oil companies get the bucks, we get the pollution.

The Republicans are digging too big a hole to crawl out of in a year and a half to win next year. Between the loony candidates, the liars, the birthers, going after Medicare, Planned Parenthood, unions, and people actually noticing that what they want to cut from the poor and middle class is the same as they want to give to the wealthiest, well, you get the idea.

 

[HomerJS]

I love people with overbloated opinions of themselves and their "cute" graphics. They don't have a clue when it comes to arguing in a vacuum.

Approval ratings are pointless when any potential opponent rates even lower.

As was pointed out it's far too early to count on current job approval ratings to make a 2012 prediction.

BTW - It take a really low IQ to make an argument of taking a healthy person turning him into a fat slob with a bad heart in 8 years and bitch because the new doctor hasen't fixed him back to the way he was in 2.

 

[ProfJohn]

Pro-Jo, you are retarded. You didn't even read the post. Not only does our good friend Nate say that numbers this far out are basically pointless, but he projects that 12 months out an incumbent president with an approval rate of 40% still has about a 40% chance of winning. Ie: closer to the election than now with a worse approval rating.

Silver rates Obama's chances at 1 in 3 if he has a 45% rating ON THE DAY OF THE ELECTION, not now.

Seriously man, you're embarrassing yourself. If you're trying to argue you probably shouldn't quote something that disproves your point.

Psst... that article was posted four months ago when Obama had 50% approval.

Things have changed since them.

Also, my guesses and odds are based on looking at the graph in the 15-18 month period where is is very clear that only 5 candidates have been below 50% and 3 of them won and 2 lost.

And looking at the chart from start to finish it appear that only 7 candidates ever dipped below the 45% range and 3 of those candidates lost. Furthermore, you could remove Truman from the equation due to his drop and then rebound and you end up with s 50/50 chance of a President with approvals below 45% at any time within two years of an election winning.

 

[ProfJohn]

Approval ratings are pointless when any potential opponent rates even lower.

Keep telling yourself that. Ignore the fact that any candidate with an approval rating below 49% has lost on election day. Any and every one, period!

 

[Infohawk]

If I were a Dem I wouldn't worry. The Reps will almost certainly snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

Yeah they might very well pull out another Palin (or the same if the Dems are really lucky).

 

[fskimospy]

Psst... that article was posted four months ago when Obama had 50% approval.

Things have changed since them.

Also, my guesses and odds are based on looking at the graph in the 15-18 month period where is is very clear that only 5 candidates have been below 50% and 3 of them won and 2 lost.

And looking at the chart from start to finish it appear that only 7 candidates ever dipped below the 45% range and 3 of those candidates lost. Furthermore, you could remove Truman from the equation due to his drop and then rebound and you end up with s 50/50 chance of a President with approvals below 45% at any time within two years of an election winning.

Uhmm, I know. I read it when it came out, and nothing about that changes what I wrote. You can guess whatever you want, but the article you were quoting disagrees with your analysis, which makes it hilarious that you quoted it to begin with.

The lesson to be learned from this is to actually read the articles you're trying to quote as opposed to mining them for things you think agree with you.

 

[HomerJS]

Keep telling yourself that. Ignore the fact that any candidate with an approval rating below 49% has lost on election day. Any and every one, period!

If election day were next week and the Republicans had a quality candidate I would be concerned.

Bill Clinton had a JAR of 42% Jan 96 and we all know what happened.

 

[dawp]

As it sits right now, there really isn't a quality republican candidate, they're either chasing the birther vote(Trump) or have their own baggage to deal with.

 

[OrByte]

If Romney manages to get some sortof momentum then Obama should be concerned.

But Romney is the best shot that the GOP has and he ain't cutting it in a national election

Sorry righties

 

[umbrella39]

OP I hope you are right but I seriously doubt it.

 

[Craig234]

Double post.

 

[Matt1970]

It's way too early to be making any kind of predictions. Ask the news agencies about making early predictions on winners.

 

[Craig234]

Watch his approval numbers.

Anything below 50% means he is gone.

With the ways things are going now it will take a miracle for him to win. With gas prices as high as they are now it is going to kill the economy and then unemployment will start to rise again and there will not be enough time for the economy to recover before 2012.

Bill Clinton was the luckiest president ever, peace dividend + took office at the start of a recovery, Obama is probably the least luckiest president ever.

This thread is FUD. So the first thing I asked is, 'where's the guaranteed posted of FUD propaganda, PJ?' And here you are!

Bush was below 50% much of 2004.

So, your below 50% rule applies only to Democrats, not Republicans?

Oh, let's look at some history - where were you in 2006? Oh ya, the same FUD, Republicans are gonna win!

It is interesting that this magazine says the Republicans will hold both house, and Rove has been saying the same for weeks. That is why my sig says what it says. I would not be surprised if the GOP keeps both houses.
Also note that Rush seems to have launched into some kind of get out the vote effort. (I only get to listen to him for 15 or so minutes a week so I only know details of this second hand.)

As a Democrat I would be getting ready for some disappointed election night news, at best you may pick up 20 seats in the house and MAYBE get a tie in the senate. And that is despite the constant drum of negative news on the war, the totally unreported facts of our great economy and the Foley scandal (which hit right as the Republicans were in the midst of a surge.)

Ya, you were wrong on both houses. The 'totally unreported facts on our great economy' in 2006 at the height of the problems about to crash it, nice touch.

 

[potluv]

I know I've had my share of anti-Obama comments on this board in the past, but seriously, the last thing this country needs is a Republican president. I know who I'm voting for, Obama.

 

[Red Dawn]

If election day were next week and the Republicans had a quality candidate I would be concerned.

Bill Clinton had a JAR of 42% Jan 96 and we all know what happened.

And he ran against Bob Dole who is head and shoulders better than anything the Republicans have to offer these days.

 

[rudeguy]

And he ran against Bob Dole who is head and shoulders better than anything the Republicans have to offer these days.

I agree in part.

I'm still waiting for a strong Republican candidate. Last time we had McCain. This time its looking like we will have someone not from the stone age, but still no one has thrown their hat in the ring that I'm excited about.

Maybe Trump will quit being a nut job? Maybe Hannity will announce at the last moment? Maybe one of the Pauls will come around? Who knows. But at this point there really isn't anyone who could beat Obama even in his weakened state.

 

[Robor]

ProfJohn

I actually lost a bet with a UPS driver, having bet that GWB was so bad he couldn't possibly be elected again.

And the people need to get over the fantasy that drilling more somehow gives us more oil. All of the oil we produce goes up for sale on the global market. Some of it gets bought here and stays here, but it could go anywhere if the bids are right. A lot of our best crude is sold at high margin, then the oil companies buy high sulfur crude cheaper from other countries. The oil companies get the bucks, we get the pollution.

The Republicans are digging too big a hole to crawl out of in a year and a half to win next year. Between the loony candidates, the liars, the birthers, going after Medicare, Planned Parenthood, unions, and people actually noticing that what they want to cut from the poor and middle class is the same as they want to give to the wealthiest, well, you get the idea.

I wish you were right but if the 2010 election is any indication the people are not noticing. The Republican and TEA Party folks are doing (almost) exactly what they said they would do if elected. The only thing they lied about was creating US jobs and fixing the economy.