The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[pbrower2a]

Magellan (R), PA -- 44/47 approval, but the President has huge margins awaiting him over both Perry and Romney.  Clearly up from a recent nadir.

http://www.magellanstrategies.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Magellan-Pennsylvania-2012-General-Election-Survey-Release-0919111.pdf

WA, Strategies 360 (new)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am guessing that that is a tie.

CT, Quinnipiac, 48-48, but President Obama trounces both Perry and Romney

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1646

Again, this is at a nadir, but Republicans seem not to be taking effective advantage of the low approval rating of the President.

Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60%-69% disapproval); 90% red if >70%
40-42% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
43% to 45% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Yellow  
46-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow  
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)
<50%  Approval greater: 20% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-59%: 60% Green
60%+: 80% Green


Months (All polls are from 2011):

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

 

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), or more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Partisan polls and polls for special interests (trade associations, labor unions, ethnic associations) are excluded.

Z- no recent poll

Or here:

MY CURRENT PREDICTION OF THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

(before any campaigning begins in earnest)

assuming no significant changes before early 2012 -- snicker, snicker!

           
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 56
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    74
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 95
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 83
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 53
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 54
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   26




44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 45%, 5% at 46% or 47%, 4% between 48% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 52% or 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

This model applies only to incumbents, who have plenty of advantages but not enough to rescue an unqualified failure.

Here's the rationale:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/myth-of-incumbent-50-rule.html

...and I am less charitable to an incumbent President than is Nate Silver.


But --

I have added a yellow category for states in which President Obama defeats all recognized major GOP nominees (so far Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, Palin, and where available, Thune, Daniels, Christie, and Pawlenty). This will be a yellow category supplanting those in pale blue or and white.

I am also adding a green category for those states that would otherwise be in white, pale pink, or pale blue This can be rescinded as one of the potential nominees drops out formally or is rendered irrelevant in primaries. I am also adding a deep green color for states in which  only the 'right' nominee has a chance. So far I will label that as "H" for Huckabee or else Obama, "R" for Romney or else Obama, or other initials as appropriate for  anyone else (Gingrich? Daniels? Thune?) should such cases emerge. A tan color is used for a tie.

             
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 54
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    92
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 101
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 18
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  49
orange                        close, but Obama loses against any major Republican candidate 3
Obama wins against all but one to whom he loses 37
Obama ties one candidate, but defeats everyone else  41
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 101
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 9
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  35  

[pbrower2a]

New York (Quinnipiac)


Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?

50-45

...

From September 13 - 18, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,016 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1647

Unambiguous improvement from last time.

South Carolina (Winthrop University):

40% Approve
51% Disapprove

The results of the latest Winthrop Poll taken between September 11-18, 2011 are in. The poll interviewed 1552 registered voters from South Carolina. Results which use all respondents have a margin of error of +/- 2.49% at the 95% confidence level.

http://www.winthrop.edu/winthroppoll/default.aspx?id=9804&ekmensel=fee512e3_566_0_9804_3

Simple update; otherwise no change. It's remarkable that 29% of Republican leaners and firm Republicans believe that the President is a Muslim, and that 36% of such people believe that the President was "definitely" or "probably" born in another country. 

Nevada (Public Opinion Strategies):

42% Approve
55% Disapprove

The poll of 500 likely voters was conducted Sept. 14-15 by Public Opinion Strategies. The Retail Association of Nevada, a conservative business and lobbying group active in Carson City, has commissioned five polls, approximately every six months. The poll has a margin of error of 4.38 percentage points.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/sep/20/poll-nevada-voters-prefer-higher-taxes-spending-cu/

NOT USABLE -- commissioned by a trade association (retailers).

Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60%-69% disapproval); 90% red if >70%
40-42% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
43% to 45% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Yellow  
46-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow  
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)
<50%  Approval greater: 20% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-59%: 60% Green
60%+: 80% Green


Months (All polls are from 2011):

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

 

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), or more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Partisan polls and polls for special interests (trade associations, labor unions, ethnic associations) are excluded.

Z- no recent poll

Or here:

MY CURRENT PREDICTION OF THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

(before any campaigning begins in earnest)

assuming no significant changes before early 2012 -- snicker, snicker!

           
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 56
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    103
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 66
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 83
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 53
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 54
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   26




44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 45%, 5% at 46% or 47%, 4% between 48% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 52% or 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

This model applies only to incumbents, who have plenty of advantages but not enough to rescue an unqualified failure.

Here's the rationale:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/myth-of-incumbent-50-rule.html

...and I am less charitable to an incumbent President than is Nate Silver.


But --

I have added a yellow category for states in which President Obama defeats all recognized major GOP nominees (so far Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, Palin, and where available, Thune, Daniels, Christie, and Pawlenty). This will be a yellow category supplanting those in pale blue or and white.

I am also adding a green category for those states that would otherwise be in white, pale pink, or pale blue This can be rescinded as one of the potential nominees drops out formally or is rendered irrelevant in primaries. I am also adding a deep green color for states in which  only the 'right' nominee has a chance. So far I will label that as "H" for Huckabee or else Obama, "R" for Romney or else Obama, or other initials as appropriate for  anyone else (Gingrich? Daniels? Thune?) should such cases emerge. A tan color is used for a tie.

             
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 54
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    121
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 72
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 18
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  49
orange                        close, but Obama loses against any major Republican candidate 3
Obama wins against all but one to whom he loses 37
Obama ties one candidate, but defeats everyone else  41
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 101
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 9
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  35  

[pbrower2a]

Texas - PPP:

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

Approve .......................................................... 40%
Disapprove...................................................... 55%

Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Rick Perry’s job performance?

Approve .......................................................... 45%
Disapprove...................................................... 48%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_TX_09201118.pdf

Significantly this sample suggests an 8% split between McCain and Obama supporters, which is less than what happened in 2012.  President Obama loses to both Perry and Romney by single digits  and actually defeats (barely) Bachmann and Gingrich.

Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60%-69% disapproval); 90% red if >70%
40-42% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
43% to 45% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Yellow  
46-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow  
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)
<50%  Approval greater: 20% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-59%: 60% Green
60%+: 80% Green


Months (All polls are from 2011):

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

 

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), or more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Partisan polls and polls for special interests (trade associations, labor unions, ethnic associations) are excluded.

Z- no recent poll

Or here:

MY CURRENT PREDICTION OF THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

(before any campaigning begins in earnest)

assuming no significant changes before early 2012 -- snicker, snicker!

           
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 56
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    103
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 66
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 83
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 15
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 92
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   26




44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 45%, 5% at 46% or 47%, 4% between 48% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 52% or 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

This model applies only to incumbents, who have plenty of advantages but not enough to rescue an unqualified failure.

Here's the rationale:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/myth-of-incumbent-50-rule.html

...and I am less charitable to an incumbent President than is Nate Silver.


But --

I have added a yellow category for states in which President Obama defeats all recognized major GOP nominees (so far Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, Palin, and where available, Thune, Daniels, Christie, and Pawlenty). This will be a yellow category supplanting those in pale blue or and white.

I am also adding a green category for those states that would otherwise be in white, pale pink, or pale blue This can be rescinded as one of the potential nominees drops out formally or is rendered irrelevant in primaries. I am also adding a deep green color for states in which  only the 'right' nominee has a chance. So far I will label that as "H" for Huckabee or else Obama, "R" for Romney or else Obama, or other initials as appropriate for  anyone else (Gingrich? Daniels? Thune?) should such cases emerge. A tan color is used for a tie.

             
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 54
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    121
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 72
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 18
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  49
orange                        close, but Obama loses against any major Republican candidate 3
Obama wins against all but one to whom he loses 37
Obama ties one candidate, but defeats everyone else  41
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 101
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 9
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  35  

[pbrower2a]

President Obama will not do well in the Ozarks and Appalachians.

ARKANSAS

Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the job President Barack Obama is doing?

31.5%     Approve
63.5%     Disapprove
5%          Don't know

http://www.talkbusiness.net/article/ARKANSANS-RATE-OBAMA-JOB-PERFORMANCE-2-TO-1-NEGATIVE/2503/

Polling is conducted by one of the most right-wing colleges in America... but even given much leeway, President Obama has to be doing worse in Arkansas than almost anywhere else.

PPP, West Virginia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/09/obama-down-12-to-romney-11-to-perry-in-west-virginia.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60%-69% disapproval); 90% red if >70%
40-42% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
43% to 45% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Yellow  
46-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow  
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)
<50%  Approval greater: 20% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-59%: 60% Green
60%+: 80% Green


Months (All polls are from 2011):

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

 

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), or more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Partisan polls and polls for special interests (trade associations, labor unions, ethnic associations) are excluded.

Z- no recent poll

Or here:

MY CURRENT PREDICTION OF THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

(before any campaigning begins in earnest)

assuming no significant changes before early 2012 -- snicker, snicker!

           
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 56
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    103
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 66
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 83
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 15
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 92
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   32




44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 45%, 5% at 46% or 47%, 4% between 48% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 52% or 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

This model applies only to incumbents, who have plenty of advantages but not enough to rescue an unqualified failure.

Here's the rationale:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/myth-of-incumbent-50-rule.html

...and I am less charitable to an incumbent President than is Nate Silver.


But --

I have added a yellow category for states in which President Obama defeats all recognized major GOP nominees (so far Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, Palin, and where available, Thune, Daniels, Christie, and Pawlenty). This will be a yellow category supplanting those in pale blue or and white.

I am also adding a green category for those states that would otherwise be in white, pale pink, or pale blue This can be rescinded as one of the potential nominees drops out formally or is rendered irrelevant in primaries. I am also adding a deep green color for states in which  only the 'right' nominee has a chance. So far I will label that as "H" for Huckabee or else Obama, "R" for Romney or else Obama, or other initials as appropriate for  anyone else (Gingrich? Daniels? Thune?) should such cases emerge. A tan color is used for a tie.

             
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 54
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    121
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 72
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 18
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  49
orange                        close, but Obama loses against any major Republican candidate 3
Obama wins against all but one to whom he loses 37
Obama ties one candidate, but defeats everyone else  41
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 101
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 9
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  42  

[pbrower2a]

I am no longer updating this map. I have a new one on margins between the President and his two most likely challengers (Perry and Romney). Of you look at those two maps you will see far less gobbledygook with no loss of relevance. 

I am no longer satisfied that approval ratings are meaningful between pollsters; some pollsters are more effective effective at eliciting an opinion out of people than are others. If the President gets a 42% approval rating in one state from one pollster and leads both Perry and Romney and another pollster shows a 47% approval for the President and leads over both main candidates, then does one have a different idea of how well the President is doing?  I think not.

The rules may have changed for the 2012 election in one respect: that people might be dissatisfied with the performance of the President for inability to get legislation passed and for overall economic failure -- yet give more culpability to Republican politicians, some of whom (let alone their groupies) have done some very offensive stuff.   All Presidential elections have some unique features, but this one shapes itself as one of the most freakish in American history.

Furthermore I am no longer satisfied that a lead of President Obama over someone like Gingrich, Bachmann, or Palin means anything anymore any more than a lead of John McCain over John Edwards was relevant at a certain point. Gingrich, Palin, and Bachmann had their chances and have blown them.   

Besides, the webmaster of www.electoral-vote.com has shown an intention to restart his website for the 2012 election.  No way can I approach his resources.

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

President Obama can win Florida's 29 electoral votes -- see below to see what the "add 6%" rule applies for an incumbent President. In view of some of the abysmal ratings of approval of the President in Florida in recent weeks, this could signal a huge improvement in the prospects of the re-election of the President. The President apparently doesn't need Florida to win, but any Republican nominee absolutely must win Florida to become President.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ron Paul is not going to win the Republican nomination. Pure libertarians may be becoming more popular than the corporatist/fundamentalist coalition even if they have yet to consolidate the power of fundraising.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is almost the margin by which President Obama won Colorado in 2008. Such suggests a 53-46 split of the national popular vote with the President winning about 400 electoral votes. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Virtual tie.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perry should never gave brought up that canard. It is clearly a losing proposition in Florida, a state that a Republican nominee absolutely dares not lose.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The polled electorate looks much like that of 2008 in composition.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_FL_0929925.pdf

I have a pair of simpler and more legible maps in the "margins" thread.

By the way,

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45, -1.

Disapprove 53%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 22%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 42%, +1.

The PPP poll for Florida is remarkably consistent with the Rasmussen nationwide poll.

[pbrower2a]

Here are my current margins for polls beginning August 24 or so. Only the latest poll counts -- and no internal polls or polls commissioned by ethnic advocacy groups (example: NAACP, but they don't commission polls), labor unions, or trade associations.

An Obama lead is in red, a lead for the Republican (for now only Perry and Romney) will appear in blue, and a tie in white. These maps show the margins as

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

Above 10% the distinctions are effectively moot in a winner-take-all statewide election.

 
Obama vs. Perry

Obama vs. Romney

With guesses based on prior voting behavior of states (orange for President Obama, green for the Republican)

under 1% white
1-2% shade 20%
3-4% shade 30%
5-7% shade 40%
8-9% shade 60%
10% or greater shade 80%

anything 5% or higher will be shown with a shade of 50% in part because I  have at most a guess and because anything higher than 50% saturation looks bad on the map.

Obama vs. Perry

*ME districts should be shaded in dark orange and NE-02 in pale orange.




Obama vs. Romney

* ME districts should appear in dark orange.

...Don't expect to see more of the bottom two maps.

[pbrower2a]

I have been looking at the 18 month/12 month period prior to the election. 

The one with the lowest low number to win reelection was Clinton in 1996; he had 42% approval in January 1996.

The one with the highest low number to lose reelection was Ford, with a low of 39% in December 1975.

Note that GHWB's collapsed in the spring of 1992 and I think he bottomed at 29%.

I've generally thought that if Obama consistently got below 40%, it could be over.

Incumbents due tend to bounce back a lot closer.  Carter's 12 month low prior to the election was 31% and he gained about 9 points.  Reagan was at 43% in May of 1983 and gained about 16 points.

But, prior Presidents took their pain early and timed the peak of attempts to stimulate the economy to coincide with an election year. Obama tried to avoid the pain early, and is mired in a Japanese-style slump as a result.

Different scenario. President Obama came in when a full-blown economic meltdown reminiscent in many ways of that that began in September 1929. He addressed it by the book. The meltdown that had begun in September 2007 came to an end in the equivalent of February or March 1931 instead of in the equivalent of late 1933.

The appropriate comparisons are to the 1930s and not to any later times. President Obama would have approval ratings in the teens by now had he taken deflationary measures at the start of his administration... but that would be the least of anyone's problems, especially with even higher unemployment, a far greater number of corporate failures, and huge.reductions in living standards. The get-rich-quick schemes that marked American economic life from about 1981 to 2007 can no longer work.  

[pbrower2a]

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Source?

1. You create misery by legislation that eases the transfer of wealth to a few at the expense of everyone else.

2. Did you ever hear of disability insurance?

3. As if the government were the economic equivalent of a black hole. Government might not create wealth directly, but it might facilitate wealth with the creation of value. Wealth that does not flow, unless it creates wealth, does little good.

4. Have you ever heard of the marginal utility of income? A thousand dollars might do much good for some pauper with rotting teeth, but little for someone who owns millions of dollars.

5. Wealth created with the aid of the lash or under the threat of the noose is a sham.

[pbrower2a]

We're almost getting in range when we can say that he'll be a first term president, unless there's a seismic economic recovery within the next year.

Frankly, I think he's done for already. I just don't see how he's going to get his numbers close to 50%, and remain there on a consistent basis. He has 13 months; time is starting to run out. 

The rules are very different for economic hard times that are clearly not the fault of the President, are blamed upon a prior President or on foreigners, and have no obvious cure except what the President proposes. FDR got re-elected in very hard times -- the Great Depression and the Second World War. Three times!

There is no quick return to non-recession times. The GOP is giving America what it considers an offer that it can't refuse but is giving instead an offer that it can't accept. Few people want greater hardships for themselves on behalf of people that they have little cause to trust. The GOP won big in 2010 by sugar-coating a raw deal for the American people. The sugar-coating has washed away.

Wage cuts for oneself and tax cuts for someone else -- essentially the rigid GOP offer -- can't be offered anew with sugar-coating in 2012 with a reasonable chance of acceptance. Now here is the bigger question: must the President become a demagogue to be re-elected? I hope not! Demagogues fare well politically in hard times. It is far easier to cast blame than to offer solutions. We are in no ordinary recession. Doing what got us into this very nasty recession -- the Lesser Depression -- is a non-solution; people just won't respond. There won't be a fresh real-estate boom for about twenty years, and the predatory lending and dishonest underwriting of what have proved bad loans will repel people much as two north poles of magnets repel each other. The GOP solution of doing what got us into the Great Depression is even less attractive except to those who expect new opportunities to get good stuff at distressed prices.   

[pbrower2a]

Daily Kos/SEIU Weekly State of the Nation Poll:

44% Approve (+3)
50% Disapprove (-4)

Do you have a favorable, unfavorable, or neutral opinion of the Occupy Wall Street movement, or have you not heard of it?

35% Favorable
31% Unfavorable
19% Neutral
14% Haven't heard of it

Public Policy Polling, 1000 Registered Voters, MoE 3.1%, October 6, 2011 - October 9, 2011.

http://dailykos.com/weeklypolling/2011/10/6

It certainly beats the Tea Party Movement. Maybe it is because the Tea Party is organized and guided by the Establishment, or at least parts of it.

   

[pbrower2a]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 44%, -2.

Disapprove 54%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 18%, -1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 40%, u.


The Strongly Approve number is now at a record low, though it just could be a natural swing.

Pretty much the same strong approve / strong disapprove numbers that Democracy Corpse (D) got. - 21 versus -22.


Strongly approve ..................................................................21
Somewhat approve ..............................................................19
Somewhat disapprove..........................................................11
Strongly disapprove .............................................................42

When Bush was in the mid to high 40s in 2003 and 2004, at  least his "strong approve" numbers were still not too far off his strong disapprove.

In the context of such a large enthusiasm gap, Obama's efforts to throw some "red meat" to the Democratic base make a lot of sense. - Bush beat Kerry in 2004 (mostly) because the Bush folks loved Bush a bit more than the Kerry folks hated him.  I think Obama's more class warfare (edit, trying to resist trolling tendency) "populist" focus of late lies in the reality.

President Obama didn't run as a populist in 2008. He steered clear of class warfare, seeming to suggest that (as Ronald Reagan did) that a rising tide raises all boats. It is unambiguously clear that the recovery that we have (or had) has been uneven in results.

The Tea Party that formed to oppose him and restore the power of the Right found its populist appeal first -- even if the appeal has huge faults, as it has proved anti-worker and anti-middle-class. That sort of populism has huge faults.

People are angry at elites who have waxed fat while degrading everyone else. If the prosperity that those elites seek depends upon the impoverishing of everyone else, then it will be difficult for Republicans to defend those elites and the objectives of those elites.

President Obama has stayed clear of negativistic smears upon his rivals. So far he is positioning himself first against the Republicans in Congress. The negative ads against any Republican nominee are likely to begin at an apt time.     

[pbrower2a]

I am not resuscitating the old map that I created. It had gotten messy.

It may be hard to believe that the President can win a state despite a plurality of people in the state believing that he does not deserve a second term and despite having an approval rating of 43%  or so nationwide. Ohio, not surprisingly, is very close to the national average.  The President can win without Ohio, but he can hardly lose with it.  No current GOP candidate can win without Ohio.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No American likes his own economic distress... but no GOP candidate seems to offer a viable alternative.

[pbrower2a]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 43%, -1.

Disapprove 55%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 19%, +1.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 40%, u.

we are not quite there, but we are starting to get the the point in time where these approval ratings begin (very dimly) to have some predictive value.

Starting early next year they start to mean something.

the head to heads are, of course, meaningless.  PEW did a poll and found that less than 50% can, unprompted, name even one GOP presidential candidate, so the head to heads are jibberish.

The only poll that is semi-meaningful right now is Obama's "deserves to be re-elected" and/or Obama versus the mythical generic republican.

Obama's getting low 40s on both of these.  Not good, but not dead in the water either.  I would call it somewhat to the darker side of the grey area at this point.

The head-to-head match-ups are relevant. People are watching the political scene,  People have been watching the Republican debates, and the Republican candidates are far-better known than has been the case in the recent past.   The political figures are as well known at the least as figures of popular culture.

News coverage of the President is nothing spectacular. But Republican candidates are getting much attention; they are carping at the President nearly non-stop. They have a head start... and so far they show themselves ineffective in showing the President as a fool, crook, or an unqualified failure. This is with a horrible economy.

The average gain from an approval rating to the share of the vote for an incumbent Senator or Governor is 6%, and that is probably much the same for the President. From 43% that suggests that the incumbent President would end up with 49% of the popular vote with the challenger getting 51% and losing.

That is far from exact. Much  matters, including breaking scandals, the economy, military or diplomatic successes and debacles, and of course the quality of campaigns of the incumbent and challenger. Without question, President Obama would likely go down to a Republican as strong as Ronald Reagan who has no regional weaknesses and knows how to modulate his language to seem more moderate than he is. This President is a complete mismatch for much of America -- the Deep South except for blacks, the oil patch of America, and the culturally-similar areas of the Ozarks and the middle and southern Appalachians (basically the mountainous areas east of the Rockies to the south of roughly Binghamton, New York).

So why the 6% gain on the average? The incumbent, first of all, has usually shown the ability to win  the election that got him in. For every President of the twentieth century except for Gerald Ford (who had never won a statewide race) such has been true. The incumbent has responsibilities in office that preclude him from campaigning 24-7 -- as a legislator and as an administrator. Some of those, like the budgetary process, can be messy. Incumbents get pinned down for policy; challengers can usually get away with talking out of both sides of their mouths, at least early, perhaps saying one thing in Vermont and another in Wyoming or saying one thing at the Sierra Club and another at a convention of the American Petroleum Institute.

But it is an average. That depends on an average incumbent against an average challenger. Some incumbents won by piecing together coalitions that cannot endure for four years (prime example -- Jimmy Carter); sometimes the challengers are unusually weak (McGovern) and sometimes they are unusually strong (Clinton). Incumbents run on their records and win or run from their records and lose. Challengers usually run on the weaknesses of the records of incumbents.  For good reason eight of thirteen incumbent Presidents running for re-election beginning in 2000 got re-elected, which isn't a random result.   

What I just said in the preceding paragraph is mush. The story of the 2012 election is far from written. If I say that the President has roughly a 60% chance of re-election, then that is consistent with "8 of 13".

 

[pbrower2a]

I guess we just disagree on the facts.

Let's look at Gallup approval ratings of all presidents starting with Truman eligible to seek re-election, and see how they did versus the 1st quarter Gallup approval ratings in the year of their (potential) re-election:

Gallup approval ratings - Last poll in 1st quarter of (potential) re-election year:

Sorted from most popular 1st quarter of the election year to least popular:

Presidents Over 50% - Every single one re-elected

Eisenhower 1956 - 1st Quarter approval - 1956 => Low to mid 70s approval => Re-elected

Johnson 1964 - 1st Quarter 1964 => mid 70s approval => Re-elected

Reagan 1984 - 1st Quarter 1984 => 54%  => reelected

Nixon 1972 - 1st Quarter 1972 => 53% approval => Re-elected

GW Bush - 1st Quarter 2004 = 53% approval => Re-elected

Clinton 1996 - 1st Quarter 1996 = 52% approval => Re-elected


President who polled 46% to 50% in 1st Quarter lost very narrowly

Ford 1976 1st Quarter 1976 => 50% approval => Very Narrowly defeated


Presidents Below 50% - Every single one defeated or choose not to seek re-election

Obama - Fall 2011 - 43% +/- - Result TBA

GHW Bush - 1st Quarter 1992 = 41% => Defeated

Carter 1980 - 1st Quarter 1980 => 39%  => defeated

Johnson 1968 - 1st quarter 36% approval => Choose not to seek re-election

Truman 1948 - 1st Quarter 1948 - 36% approval => Choose not to seek re-election




Hmmm..

The 50% rule in the 1st quarter of the election year has gone 11 for 11 and predicted re-election (or not) with 100% accuracy in every presidential election since Truman....

Naturally, "Rules of thumb" work perfectly till they don't work anymore, but that being said:

The "50%" rule was not pulled out the air, it has a solid historical basis....

If you think Obama's 43% gets him 4 more years you are... at odds with the historical data...

You have "Truman 1948" confused with "Truman 1952".

The President's low approval ratings relate to (1) the putrid economy, and (2) the unwillingness of the Republicans in Congress to allow him to pass any legislation. Republicans still have culpability for the economy, and the latter probably explains why Congress has such a putrid approval rating of its own.

The polls are also jumping up and down, depending upon recent events.

No Presidential election has ever gotten so much early attention as this one. Republican challengers to the President have placed themselves in the spotlight early. Ordinarily the people running against an incumbent President don't get the attention that they do now. As an example, Barack Obama was not particularly well-known a year before he was elected. But now, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin are very well  known. I would say that they are all better known than... Luis Pujols. 

Barack Obama is clearly not so awful that just about anyone could beat him. Were he that awful, you would see matchups like Palin 55, Obama 41 all over the map.  I look at recent polls in Ohio and see President Obama up by 4% over Romney and bigger over everyone else. A 4% gap hardly looks insurmountable because it isn't. It will be just as possible for the President to extend that gap as for Romney to cut into it. When it comes to the likes of Perry, Palin, and Bachmann they had their chances.

The Republican challengers to the President have exposed their positions early. That implies that the President's campaign has plenty of time in which to formulate a negative campaign against any candidate who talks out of both sides of his mouth. Someone who poses as a moderate yet cuts deals with extremists to the offense of moderate sensibilities will be nailed for that in due time.

Americans are getting more frustrated with politics. The Tea Party offered a solution -- and that solution isn't exactly chamomile.   

[pbrower2a]

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 46%, u.

Disapprove 53%, +1.

"Strongly Approve" is at 23%,+2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 41%, u.

If this is a bad sample, we should see Obama's numbers drop tomorrow or Tuesday, especially the Strongly Approve numbers.

Qaddafi dead, announced pull-out from Iraq, lower unemployment numbers... those can only help the President's approval rating.

This is a good starting position before the campaign season begins in earnest for he President -- if he can have it in April. 

[pbrower2a]

Qaddafi dead, announced pull-out from Iraq, lower unemployment numbers... those can only help the President's approval rating.

This is a good starting position before the campaign season begins in earnest for he President -- if he can have it in April. 

I think you are grandly over reading Libya.  Unemployment dropped slightly, but not nearly enough.  Iraq only helps if it is stable, and it's too early to tell.

Less significant singly than Osama bin Laden being whacked. But put them together and that destroys one of the early raps on the President -- that he would be indecisive and ineffective on matters of defense and diplomacy.

The economy? "Bad but improving" is far better than "mediocre but shaky" as it was six years ago, let alone in free-fall where it was three years ago. So the President campaigns on "The job is not done, and I need your help because Congress won't do anything".

I see him running a Truman 1948 campaign and winning on it.

[pbrower2a]

Europeans organized the coup d'etat in Libya. Obama had nothing to do with it.

Pbrower, your fangirlish love for Obama is kind of sick. I can see you fapping for any poll that shows approval ratings one or two points up. But take it easy, this is just a bad sample.

Coup? That was a popular revolution. That organization had a hidden hand. NATO never acts so firmly, decisively, and fearlessly without the implicit consent of the United States and its leadership.

I do not love President Obama. He is simply the best leader that we could have at this time. I have seen his approval ratings go up and down, and this time I could see a reason. My favorite analogue for this President is paradoxically that of Ronald Reagan, not my favorite President.
   

[pbrower2a]

Ayres, McHenry & Associates (R):

50% Approve
47% Disapprove

Results are based on 1000 weighted cases, Margin of Error = ±3.10 percent. Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

http://www.resurgentrepublic.com/system/assets/436/original/RR_Nov_2011_Year_Out_Toplines.pdf

An interesting poll.

They ask the "approval question" quite deep into the survey after having presented the GOP and Dem positions on a variety of issues.

Because of this, this poll is "kinda" a very mild version of a "push poll" - I am not saying this in a negative way BTW, in campaigns it is standard procedure to present a variety of issues and see if the presentation of these issues impacts the "horse race question" as a way of testing campaign themes.

Given that it has been quite a while since Obama has a net positive approval rating in any poll, this poll suggests, at least as presented in this survey, that Obama can make up a bit of ground "on the issues" and that the policy issues , at least as framed in this poll,  are more popular than he is personally.

The President is doing fine on everything but the economy.  Of course, it is questionable that anyone can get the sort of results that most of us want... fast. Only a fool believes that the President can win re-election on  inertia alone. So there is a little good news... maybe not enough. Of course, Hoover was a fine President on about everything but economic performance.

Some Republican could offer a "secret fifteen-point plan for growing our way out of the Obama Depression", and if people are desperate enough they will fall for it. The best thing about some such plans is that there is no plan; second-best would be that it would be fifteen trivialities. The worst thing about such a plan is that there might be good reasons for keeping its contents secret. Almost nobody wants a huge reduction in living standards for himself so that someone far away and far better-off can get richer.

 

     

[pbrower2a]

PPP isn't charitable to the President in its most recent approval rating:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...but he can apparently win against this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Q12 If the candidates for President next year were
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Rick
Perry, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama................................................ 49%
Rick Perry ....................................................... 39%
Undecided....................................................... 11%

Q13 If the candidates for President next year were
Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt
Romney, who would you vote for?
Barack Obama................................................ 46%
Mitt Romney.................................................... 43%
Undecided....................................................... 11%[/quote]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_1115513.pdf

With such high disapproval for the President and low valuation of the competence of challengers, I can expect that a large number of  potential voters either

(1) will not vote for any nominee
(2) will make their decisions based on something random, like a coin toss
(3) will vote for a third-party candidate
(4) will vote based upon their partisan affiliation

...all of which suggest a wash.

 

[pbrower2a]

Michigan: President Tied With Generic Republican

As President Obama seeks re-election, a couple of traditionally Democratic states may be more competitive than usual.

In 2008, the president won Michigan’s Electoral College votes by sixteen percentage points but most Michigan voters now disapprove of the way he’s handled his tenure in the White House. Just 47% of Likely Voters in the state approve of the way that the president is performing his job, while 52% disapprove, according to new Rasmussen Reports polling data.

"Generic Republican" will go into hibernation as winter approaches its end and won't re-emerge until after the 2012 election is over. In Michigan "Generic Republican" means former Governor William Milliken or the late George Romney -- not James DeMint or Michele Bachmann.

Michigan will be decided, in any event, on voter turnout. The Democrats are going to try to get as many union members, Hispanics, and African-Americans   out to vote, and if they are successful the Democrats are going to make Michigan in 2012 look politically much like Michigan in 2008.   Michigan is politically much like either Minnesota or Wisconsin except with far more blacks -- or basically with Detroit instead of the Twin Cities or Milwaukee. 

[pbrower2a]

...or a bad sample.

The day Obama hit +1 in Rasmussen the sample jumped up a net 5% in one day, and three days later it drops 6% as that sample rolls off....

The "strong approve" dropping 5% looks like a bad sample on the low side...

Rasmussen's use of "likely voters" about a year out adds artificial volatility to things because "likely voters" a year out bounce around far more that they do close into an election....

There is no perfect methodology, they all have warts, this is just the set of warts Rasmussen has chosen...

Nobody can predict who the 'likely voters' are.  Some of the 'likely voters' will die or go senile and not vote.  Some who newly register to vote may be excited about casting their first vote as if a rite of passage. The latter are about as likely voters as I can imagine except for those actively involved in politics.

In all fairness to Rasmussen, its "likely voters" ends up looking like the electorate in a midterm or off-year election but goes to "real voters" in a Presidential year.   

[pbrower2a]

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.   

[pbrower2a]

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.

   

[pbrower2a]

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?