You Cannot Win An Election With Strong Disapprovals Like This

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Which is what makes Obama's current ratings all the more impressive, people aren't expecting things to get better anytime soon and yet he is still in the 40s

are you for real or are you just trolling?!  it doesnt matter where you at in the polls 13 months before the election, what matters is the undercurrents...and those undercurrents translate into an approval rating of 30, maybe even sub 30, by election day.

there is not going to be economic growth for the next 6 months and the UE rate will be increasing....that already baked into the cake and there's not anything anyone can do about it....so, unless you're envisioning blockbuster economic growth starting in June 2012 with job gains >300k from June 2012 through Oct 2012....there is NO WAY Obama can win this election unless the GOP nominee gets caught with a live boy in his bed.

Incumbents are owned by the undercurrents because incumbents are held accountable for the prevailing conditions of the country: Reagan’s landslide, who was tied in the polls in Nov ’83, was sealed by the undercurrents that were at work 12 months prior to the election…same with Bush41’s defeat…same with Cliinton’s reelection.

So, while Obama may get a few brownie points for admitting “Americans are not better off than they were four years ago”, he still has to follow that sentence with “we've been able to make steady progress to stabilize the economy”, because Obama understands that although he will be given a pass on the first 2.5-3.0 years, he will win reelection or be defeated based on his record over the final 12 months leading up to the election.

Fair or unfair, that’s the way the cookie crumbles for incumbents of the White House.

[Wonkish1]

If you've seen them recently then I don't doubt their legitimacy.  Plus I just remembered that GallUp has a President approval comparison on their website and it shows exactly what you said, that Reagan (and also Clinton) were only a few points above Obama, and that is despite the poor economic conditions right now.

 

...and Reagan and Clinto both had strong tails winds to sustain their upward momentum...while Obama is facing galeforce head winds that are about to become hurricane force...

Which is what makes Obama's current ratings all the more impressive, people aren't expecting things to get better anytime soon and yet he is still in the 40s

I can assure they are much, much worse than in 83 or 95 and getting worse. The strong disapproval vs. strong approval index is at a level never seen by pollsters in any reelection since they started polling. The enthusiasm gap is atrocious. The economic approval/disapproval is also in the proverbial toilet. Trust me as unemployment starts to rise again he'll be retesting new lows into the mid 30s. This is just the calm before the storm.

And again keep in mind that both Reagan and Clinton had huge surges in their approval ratings because of great economic situations during the actual elections. If there approvals were actually at the mid 40s during reelection they probably would have lost. Clinton definitely, Reagan possibly. Obama's approvals aren't getting better by next Nov. I can assure you of that.

It's good that you have that time machine to see what November 2012 is going to be like.  Although I do understand the desire of conservatives to see unemployment rise

Maybe its because I'm in Finance and its my job to determine the odds of different scenario's you thought about that?

[Wonkish1]

Nope, its not wrong. Crushing Republicans would have done some good, in my opinion. Had Obama raised the debt ceiling on his own, well before the deadline, (or sh**t, had he just done the debt ceiling raise during the lane duck session) we likely would not have seen the stock market go haywire, and it wouldn't have undermined confidence in our political system.

You don't know what your talking about. That wasn't the big issue with the markets. Nor was really the downgrade which S&P already said they were going to do if the US didn't cut to its target. So if Obama would have just raised the debt ceiling S&P would have still just downgraded anyway.

The problem in the markets was still predominately Europe back then, still is now, and Chinese slowdown in manufacturing purchasing and risk of property developers default has been added to the list.

The debt ceiling issue was never that much of an issue for the markets.

[Wonkish1]

We have a lot of young-uns around here, who just have not lived through as many crazed political cycles as I have I guess. Anyway, you don't see me making many predictions that are not highly, and lawyer-like qualified, as to what the landscape will be like in 13 months! 

I certainly hope your not referring to me!

[Torie]

We have a lot of young-uns around here, who just have not lived through as many crazed political cycles as I have I guess. Anyway, you don't see me making many predictions that are not highly, and lawyer-like qualified, as to what the landscape will be like in 13 months! 

I certainly hope your not referring to me!

Are you an old?

[Wonkish1]

We have a lot of young-uns around here, who just have not lived through as many crazed political cycles as I have I guess. Anyway, you don't see me making many predictions that are not highly, and lawyer-like qualified, as to what the landscape will be like in 13 months! 

I certainly hope your not referring to me!

Are you an old?

From the vibe I've been getting on this site, I'm probably older than half. I don't know. I'm wouldn't call myself "an old" by any means.

I'm in my later 20s.

But I was more referring to this comment, "Anyway, you don't see me making many predictions that are not highly, and lawyer-like qualified, as to what the landscape will be like in 13 months!  "

Since I am the OP am I to assume that was directed at me?

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

If you've seen them recently then I don't doubt their legitimacy.  Plus I just remembered that GallUp has a President approval comparison on their website and it shows exactly what you said, that Reagan (and also Clinton) were only a few points above Obama, and that is despite the poor economic conditions right now.

 

...and Reagan and Clinto both had strong tails winds to sustain their upward momentum...while Obama is facing galeforce head winds that are about to become hurricane force...

Which is what makes Obama's current ratings all the more impressive, people aren't expecting things to get better anytime soon and yet he is still in the 40s

I can assure they are much, much worse than in 83 or 95 and getting worse. The strong disapproval vs. strong approval index is at a level never seen by pollsters in any reelection since they started polling. The enthusiasm gap is atrocious. The economic approval/disapproval is also in the proverbial toilet. Trust me as unemployment starts to rise again he'll be retesting new lows into the mid 30s. This is just the calm before the storm.

And again keep in mind that both Reagan and Clinton had huge surges in their approval ratings because of great economic situations during the actual elections. If there approvals were actually at the mid 40s during reelection they probably would have lost. Clinton definitely, Reagan possibly. Obama's approvals aren't getting better by next Nov. I can assure you of that.

It's good that you have that time machine to see what November 2012 is going to be like.  Although I do understand the desire of conservatives to see unemployment rise

Maybe its because I'm in Finance and its my job to determine the odds of different scenario's you thought about that?

Good for you.  I'm unemployed and recognize that the conservative way of job creating doesn't work, if it did Bush's economy would have been a lot different.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

I don't understand bringing up approval ratings this earlier when Reagan had low approval ratings the year before reelection.

Anyone know the approval ratings of
George H.W. Bush
Bill Clinton
George W Bush

At this time before their reelection?

Gallup:

Reagan 47%
GHW Bush 64%
Clinton 48%
GW Bush 55%

Reagan and Clinton were coming off their lows, which were just after the midterms IIRC. They would both hit 50% the following month - Reagan in response to Grenada, Clinton in reaction to the gov't shutdown. Bush 41 was coming down from 91% after the Gulf War, and would start his downward spiral around late Oct./early Nov. as the bad economy came into focus more. Bush 43 was declining on bad Iraq news, and would stabilize in the mid to high forties around the time of the Dem. primaries.

[Torie]

We have a lot of young-uns around here, who just have not lived through as many crazed political cycles as I have I guess. Anyway, you don't see me making many predictions that are not highly, and lawyer-like qualified, as to what the landscape will be like in 13 months! 

I certainly hope your not referring to me!

Are you an old?

From the vibe I've been getting on this site, I'm probably older than half. I don't know. I'm wouldn't call myself "an old" by any means.

I'm in my later 20s.

But I was more referring to this comment, "Anyway, you don't see me making many predictions that are not highly, and lawyer-like qualified, as to what the landscape will be like in 13 months!  "

Since I am the OP am I to assume that was directed at me?

Heavens no!  Generally the names are a blur to me, and I "love" most of you, yes I do, so getting personal like that just isn't my style - usually - except of course with my pals.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

I don't understand bringing up approval ratings this earlier when Reagan had low approval ratings the year before reelection.

Anyone know the approval ratings of
George H.W. Bush
Bill Clinton
George W Bush

At this time before their reelection?

Gallup:

Reagan 47%
GHW Bush 64%
Clinton 48%
GW Bush 55%

Reagan and Clinton were coming off their lows, which were just after the midterms IIRC. They would both hit 50% the following month - Reagan in response to Grenada, Clinton in reaction to the gov't shutdown. Bush 41 was coming down from 91% after the Gulf War, and would start his downward spiral around late Oct./early Nov. as the bad economy came into focus more. Bush 43 was declining on bad Iraq news, and would stabilize in the mid to high forties around the time of the Dem. primaries.

Yeah I did find this after asking, but thanks for posting it

[Eraserhead]

I'm not liking his chances against Romney too much at this point due to The Depression. I do think he'd still beat Perry, Cain, etc. (in some cases handily).

[Wonkish1]

It's good that you have that time machine to see what November 2012 is going to be like.  Although I do understand the desire of conservatives to see unemployment rise

Maybe its because I'm in Finance and its my job to determine the odds of different scenario's you thought about that?

Good for you.  I'm unemployed and recognize that the conservative way of job creating doesn't work, if it did Bush's economy would have been a lot different.

Well you asked!      Really you sure about that?

[Fritz]

Republicans will lose because in all likelihood, they are going to be stuck with Romney. Romney is not the type of conservative who can energize the Republican base. There just simply isn't a Republican candidate who can both appeal to moderates and independents, and also energize the base. It was thought that Perry could be that guy, but he's not. Christie might have been. Cain's 15 minutes of fame won't last any longer than Bachmann's did. No one else seems to be being given a chance, though I have to wonder why Gingrich isn't doing better.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

It's good that you have that time machine to see what November 2012 is going to be like.  Although I do understand the desire of conservatives to see unemployment rise

Maybe its because I'm in Finance and its my job to determine the odds of different scenario's you thought about that?

Good for you.  I'm unemployed and recognize that the conservative way of job creating doesn't work, if it did Bush's economy would have been a lot different.

Well you asked!      Really you sure about that?

Sounds like a rhetorical question; also I didn't ask you anything.

[Wonkish1]

Republicans will lose because in all likelihood, they are going to be stuck with Romney. Romney is not the type of conservative who can energize the Republican base. There just simply isn't a Republican candidate who can both appeal to moderates and independents, and also energize the base. It was thought that Perry could be that guy, but he's not. Christie might have been. Cain's 15 minutes of fame won't last any longer than Bachmann's did. No one else seems to be being given a chance, though I have to wonder why Gingrich isn't doing better.

You go ahead and keep telling yourself that.

Like Obama really has his base all fired up this time around.

[Wonkish1]

It's good that you have that time machine to see what November 2012 is going to be like.  Although I do understand the desire of conservatives to see unemployment rise

Maybe its because I'm in Finance and its my job to determine the odds of different scenario's you thought about that?

Good for you.  I'm unemployed and recognize that the conservative way of job creating doesn't work, if it did Bush's economy would have been a lot different.

Well you asked!      Really you sure about that?

Sounds like a rhetorical question; also I didn't ask you anything.

Fine sorry, you mockingly challenged me.

And I was just following up on your unbelievably vague statement, "and recognize that the conservative way of job creating doesn't work, if it did Bush's economy would have been a lot different." with a vague question. Because how else do you answer a vague statement like that?

[Fritz]

If there is one thing Obama can do well, it is put on a campaign.  You may be right, the Democratic base isn't all fired up yet. Give it time.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm unemployed and recognize that the conservative way of job creating doesn't work, if it did Bush's economy would have been a lot different.

ok, now I'm a little miffed...what are you trying to convince me of, exactly?  That government policy should be liberal enough to transform wasting-time-on-an-internet-forum-discussing-politics into a meaningful career path for you?

I sincerely hope my taxes aren't paying for your 267 posts on this forum in the last 2 months, cause if so, I sure didn't get my tax money's worth.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

It's good that you have that time machine to see what November 2012 is going to be like.  Although I do understand the desire of conservatives to see unemployment rise

Maybe its because I'm in Finance and its my job to determine the odds of different scenario's you thought about that?

Good for you.  I'm unemployed and recognize that the conservative way of job creating doesn't work, if it did Bush's economy would have been a lot different.

Well you asked!      Really you sure about that?

Sounds like a rhetorical question; also I didn't ask you anything.

Fine sorry, you mockingly challenged me.

And I was just following up on your unbelievably vague statement, "and recognize that the conservative way of job creating doesn't work, if it did Bush's economy would have been a lot different." with a vague question. Because how else do you answer a vague statement like that?

It's not a vague state.  The conservatives have been talking about how any increase in the top income tax brackets will hinder or stop job creation in its entirety, it is also referred to as socialism/fascism/communism/etc.  All this while simultaneously ignoring the better economy during Clinton than Bush or Obama with the higher taxes and that America was also not a socialist/fascist/communist/etc country under Truman/Eisenhower/Kennedy/etc

[DrScholl]

That's only if you assume the GOP nominee will have better approvals, which is not a guarantee over a year from the election. Modern campaigns are about getting your opponent's negatives up, which is what the President is most certainly going to focus on doing. At this point, we don't know what the numbers will look like.

[Peeperkorn]

You can win it easily if your opponent is, say, Herman Cain.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

I'm unemployed and recognize that the conservative way of job creating doesn't work, if it did Bush's economy would have been a lot different.

ok, now I'm a little miffed...what are you trying to convince me of, exactly?  That government policy should be liberal enough to transform wasting-time-on-an-internet-forum-discussing-politics into a meaningful career path for you?

I sincerely hope my taxes aren't paying for your 267 posts on this forum in the last 2 months, cause if so, I sure didn't get my tax money's worth.

No I'm not on unemployment.  Sorry to burst your bubble but I'm not like Joe the Plumber and other conservative hypocrites

I'm getting one soon, just had a great interview a few days ago

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No I'm not on unemployment.  Sorry to burst your bubble but I'm not like Joe the Plumber and other conservative hypocrites

I'm getting one soon, just had a great interview a few days ago

good luck, hope you land the job....peace

[Wonkish1]

It's not a vague state.  The conservatives have been talking about how any increase in the top income tax brackets will hinder or stop job creation in its entirety, it is also referred to as socialism/fascism/communism/etc.  All this while simultaneously ignoring the better economy during Clinton than Bush or Obama with the higher taxes and that America was also not a socialist/fascist/communist/etc country under Truman/Eisenhower/Kennedy/etc

Well you see that is more specific.

TXMichael while you seem pretty convinced, you also appear to be a pretty reasonable guy. So would you mind participating in a little exercise on here?

[Wonkish1]

That's only if you assume the GOP nominee will have better approvals, which is not a guarantee over a year from the election. Modern campaigns are about getting your opponent's negatives up, which is what the President is most certainly going to focus on doing. At this point, we don't know what the numbers will look like.

Yeah, but the incumbents approvals and disapprovals are always more important than the challengers.