Do you take J. J. or opebo seriously?

[J. J.]

Tell me something Nathan.  Here is what I said earlier about Obama's numbers:

Yesterday Obama's was tied for the lowest rate on Gallup.  Most presidents hit a low point, then start building, but there is an absolute bottom, a trough; after that, they rebound.  Obama has not troughed yet.  His numbers are still relatively high.

What part of the phrase His numbers are still relatively high, suggests that, after a week of bad news, Obama is in trouble?  He might trough at relatively high numbers.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I...understand all of what you just said, I just think your analysis is flawed, especially since you admit at the end that he might trough at higher numbers. I don't think you're stupid at all, I just find it hard to take your analysis seriously because it seems elliptical and at times inconsistent (I found your last post particularly hard to parse as a whole, although the quote and both sentences after it each made sense on their own, even though I think that the content of the quote is making suppositions that haven't been called for). If your analysis of this is correct I won't doubt you on this subject in the future.

Sorry, I guess.

[J. J.]

I...understand all of what you just said, I just think your analysis is flawed, especially since you admit at the end that he might trough at higher numbers. I don't think you're stupid at all, I just find it hard to take your analysis seriously because it seems elliptical and at times inconsistent (I found your last post particularly hard to parse as a whole, although the quote and both sentences after it each made sense on their own, even though I think that the content of the quote is making suppositions that haven't been called for). If your analysis of this is correct I won't doubt you on this subject in the future.

Sorry, I guess.

It is empirical, obviously.  I like to quantify. 

It is basically that presidents tend to drop in popularity while in office; they reach a low point, generally very low, and then rebound.  In all cases, either:

A.  The president his this low point generally 18 months or more before the election, and has time to recover enough to be re-elected (RWR, 1984; WJC, 1996).

B.  Hits the low point within 18 months prior to the election, and does not recover enough to be elected (GRF, 1976; JEC, 1980; GHW, 1988).

C.  Hits the low point, but a high low point, within 18 months prior to the election, and recovers enough to get re-elected (RMN, 1972; GWB 2004).  The high low point was above 45%.

We know that A is not true in the case of Obama. We also know that his low point was below 45%.

We don't know several things. 

1.  Is the "high low," or lowest trough point, for C. to be true above 45%?  We don't know?  40% might be the correct number. 

2.  What will Obama's poll numbers be in 12 months and then 6 months prior to the election?  Will it be Option A?

3.  How long does it take to recover from the trough?  RMN troughed 17 months prior to the election.  Should we redefine Option C. to 12 months prior to the election?

This all has do more with the dynamics of popularity than anything else.  It is one of the reasons I've yet to write the political obituary of Obama.

[Eraserhead]

Oh wow, it really does feel like 07/08 again in here.

[Iosif]

Bradley effect! Sweet Sarah Palin! The PUMAs! They'll be a convention walkout! This is not good for Obama! He's troughing! Troughing! Realignment! 1979! The deluge is coming! The deluge is coming!

I know what I'm talking about, I'm in Mensa.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Not Opebo. I don't interact with JJ much, so it's hard to say.

[opebo]

KE, you've been gone a long time - shortly after I outted opebo in 2004, he couldn't cope with his homosexual past and, blinding himself to the truth, decided to reinvent himself as a whore chasing Marxist.  Unfortunately, he took his little charade a bit too far...and now other misfits have latched onto him like a pack of rats on a bag of molded Cheetos.

I must say I feel a bit uncomfortable at our resident closet-case's obsession with the why's and where-to-fores of my John Thomas!  But hardly a sufficient reason to alter my political perspective.

The actually reason of course is at about the time of my conversion I had to face the humiliation of paid employment - something I had never thought I would do.  Yes, gentlemen, I was that most ambitious of creatures - the man who resolves never to toil.  Alas, I am a failure, and it weighs heavy upon me.

[dead0man]

Not Opebo. I don't interact with JJ much, so it's hard to say.

aye

[Gustaf]

Bradley effect! Sweet Sarah Palin! The PUMAs! They'll be a convention walkout! This is not good for Obama! He's troughing! Troughing! Realignment! 1979! The deluge is coming! The deluge is coming!

I know what I'm talking about, I'm in Mensa.

Hasn't the prediction that being in power after 2008 would be quite disastrous turned out to be largely correct? In fact, do not most Democrats characterize Bush's behaviour precisely as an "After us, the deluge" type of behaviour?

Anyway, there are issues with JJ but he isn't anywhere as ridiculously insane as opebo. Anyone who knows anything about the issues they post on could tell that.

[opebo]

Anyway, there are issues with JJ but he isn't anywhere as ridiculously insane as opebo. Anyone who knows anything about the issues they post on could tell that.

Kiss my Keynesian Endpoint, Gussy.

[Paul Kemp]

Obama could still lose, and there would be no realignment.  I'd still be saying a realignment is coming.

Uh, care to elaborate?

I said that in 2016 we'll either be starting, in or just finishing a realignment.  It is entirely possible that 2012 is not the realignment year and it starts in 2014.

If 2012 looks something like this...

... we are probably seeing a political realignment, a fundamental change in political patterns.


Obama could still lose, but the patterns don't change too much.  We could still see a realignment starting in 2014.

Like wise, Obama could win and we could still be seeing a realignment in 2014.

Basically, I see four elections in a realignment:

The Precursor Election - The congressional elections where the realignment party (RP), the one out of power, makes gains and usually gains one house. (1858, 1894, 1930, 1978)

The Realigning Election - The RP president wins, with a big popular, and/or electoral, vote margin.  One house, at least, becomes RP.  (1860, 1896 (the weakest), 1936, 1980).

The Hold Election - RP holds the house and usually increases seats (1862, 1898, 1934, 1982)

The Confirming Election - RP president wins, and wins bigger than before.  RP holds the house.  (1864, 1900, 1936, 1984).

Failing to confirm to this pattern is why 1912, 1952, 1972, and 1992 are not realignments.

Was 2010 a Precursor?  Maybe, but there were other false precursors before, 1910, 1918, 1946, 1966, 1994, and 2006.

[phk]

so, is you two's real names Neil and Bob...or is that just what you do?

Yea perhaps you've heard us together?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sDGTZRdQdw

dang, that's a weak comeback....you're about at the mental level of a banned turd named Einzige

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=reigion