You Cannot Win An Election With Strong Disapprovals Like This

[Wonkish1]

I'm sorry to the Obama supporters on here, but when 43 percent of independents "Strongly Disapprove" not just disapprove of Obama's job performance you just can't expect to pull out a narrow win with whats left.

I don't really think you can find a period of time where a politician was up for reelection with strong disapprovals like this. Basically, what it is saying is that 40% of the country doesn't just want you gone, they hate your guts. Another 10-20% just doesn't like you. And the people on the other side aren't particularly enthusiastic about you.

The margin for error when the country is lined up like that against you is almost to thin that its extremely improbable to make it through a campaign season without losing a little more support because you certainly aren't gaining any more support.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/opposition-to-obama-grows--strongly/2011/10/04/gIQAlch2ML_blog.html

[Wonkish1]

Yet he continues to destroy every Republican except Romney in head-to-head polls.

I don't know about "destroy". Most are pretty close and getting closer. But still way to early for polls like that to matter much.

[Wonkish1]

It's still too early to say if Obama can win in 2012 or not.
If the election was tomorrow, it would be a close race if Romney was the nominee.

The thing is, although many Americans dislike Obama as our president, they still like him more than any of the GOP candidates. This is the sentiment I keep hearing from independents. They hate all of the choices. They despise the entire system of governance we currently have, and thus, do not believe ANY of our choices can fix the economy and the jobs situation. This is where we have our problem which will lead to a dismal turnout in the election.

If there is dismal turnout Obama will go down in a landslide because the GOP is going to show up in spades.

All I'm pointing out is that when you have 40% of America that strongly hates you the margin for error is extremely thin. Just think about it the uncle or brother that been sort of a Republican all his life is now hammering you at every family gathering about how bad Obama is. I just don't see swing voters being able to uniformally buck that kind of onslaught over the next year.

At this stand point assuming no worsening of the economy Obama's only shot is to run a near flawless campaign and make next 0 mistakes. That is not easy to do. He pisses off 1 extra group of people and its game over.

[Wonkish1]

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?

A few key things about that though:
1) Reagan still had higher approval ratings(mid to high 40s not low 40s, high 30s)
2) Reagan didn't have close to the number of strong disapprovals that Obama had nor do I think that any president has going for reelection
3) Reagan's economy was already improving considerably at this point and was booming by the summer of the election. No reasonable economist is predicting much of an improvement by next November if at all(and some are projecting it to get worse).

[Wonkish1]

Well I read Reagan's numbers at about this time in the cycle about a week ago. So what I posted was accurate.

I'm now debating if I want to spend the next half hour pulling up all those old numbers again for you.

I'm currently splitting my time between reading a few articles, following up on this thread, I have some phone calls to make, etc.

Maybe a little later.

[Wonkish1]

Both of them have reasons to have lower approvals around this time.

In the case with Clinton, he took a shellacking in the polls during the government shutdown just as the GOP congress did. But afterward he emerged with some really high numbers.
A) The economy started roaring in 96
B) The media spun the narrative that Clinton had won the shutdown showdown
C) Clinton signed welfare reform

While things were looking a lot better in 83 there were still a lot of negatives in the economy. Inflation was high, but falling fast. Interest rates were high, but falling fast. And Unemployment was still pretty high, but falling fast. In late 82/early 83 many of Reagan's supporters didn't think he would win reelection because of the economy.

In late 83 people looked around and said things are okay, but a lot of things still suck. In mid 84 the average person looked around and said, alright this is pretty sweet.

[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.

[Wonkish1]

I'm interested as to why support among independents has eroded this much in 2011.

My immediate conclusion is:

1. The economy seems to be faltering.
2. Obama wasted 2011 with a wishy-washy "don't leave me at the altar" approach on the debt debate, when he should have crushed Republicans.

Not all independents are bland centrists who want compromise for the sake of compromise. This entire debt debate has been a massive distraction and has taken the focus away from jobs.

Number 2 is definitely wrong!!! The reason why independents are ditching Obama is because his economic disapproval is 70%. Its amazing he's not in the mid 30% already on this point alone.

Obama is where he is because people are ticked off that no recovery has happened in 3 years. They are going to be really pissed off when the economy actually does start to fall back more. The difference between these 2 things is the difference between a 41% approval rating(where  he is now) and a 34% approval rating if things start slipping more.

[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!

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

[Wonkish1]

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

Good luck with the job. I mean that! And Congrats on the great interview.

[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?

I'm completely open to voting for a Republican.  The problem is they are too conservative now.  That's why I tend to reference conservatives on policy issues instead of Republicans.

With the advent of the tea party most of the Republicans I like are now considered to be an anathema to the conservative base.  Such as Lugar, he is a real leader and I hope he wins reelection.  I'm sure there are plenty of Democratic Senators the Republicans like even though they don't necessarily reflect their views.

Edit:  Thanks for the luck

By the way, by "an exercise" I was referring to a small set of questions on policy not whether or not you were open to voting Republican. Up for it.

[Wonkish1]

What like a questionnaire on policy?  Some sort of formal debate or something?

Real simple. An either, or question. Answer. Another either, or question. Answer. Another either, or question. Answer. Explanation. That's probably how it will play out.

[Wonkish1]

I'd rather just let discussions on policy just sprout up organically.  I've received too many phone calls from political parties and special interest groups asking those sorts of questions

So I take that is a no? Man I thought you were open minded.

[Wonkish1]

I've gone through enough of those questionnaires with loaded questions to want to do them for fun.  The most recent was a phone questionnaire by some conservative energy group supporting an oil pipeline from Canada down to Texas

"Do you think gas prices are too high?"
"Do you want more jobs in the U.S.?"

"Congrats!  Support the new pipeline to have more jobs and lower gasoline prices, add more conservative talking points, Democrats want high gas prices, add more conservative talking points."

I don't like those sorts of things on either side, tough luck

That's not the type of questions I would be asking you.

[Wonkish1]

I've gone through enough of those questionnaires with loaded questions to want to do them for fun.  The most recent was a phone questionnaire by some conservative energy group supporting an oil pipeline from Canada down to Texas

"Do you think gas prices are too high?"
"Do you want more jobs in the U.S.?"

"Congrats!  Support the new pipeline to have more jobs and lower gasoline prices, add more conservative talking points, Democrats want high gas prices, add more conservative talking points."

I don't like those sorts of things on either side, tough luck

That's not the type of questions I would be asking you.

Do you really think I was born yesterday?  Hah!

What's the problem? I mean you don't even know what I'm going to ask you. And they're not "loaded" questions I don't lie. I'm assuming the reason you disliked the questions above was because they had assumptions you didn't agree with and didn't account for the fact that they're other motivations than just to increase jobs and lower gas prices, right? Don't worry the ones I was going to ask don't have either of those issues. And they aren't goal oriented questions like those are.

[Wonkish1]

What a shame. Don't ever tell me its the Dem activists that are the opened minded ones out there. They're always petrified of ever doubting what they believe so they never put themselves out there.

Its quite sad really.

[Wonkish1]

I'm sorry to the Obama supporters on here, but when 43 percent of independents "Strongly Disapprove" not just disapprove of Obama's job performance you just can't expect to pull out a narrow win with whats left.

I don't really think you can find a period of time where a politician was up for reelection with strong disapprovals like this. Basically, what it is saying is that 40% of the country doesn't just want you gone, they hate your guts. Another 10-20% just doesn't like you. And the people on the other side aren't particularly enthusiastic about you.

The margin for error when the country is lined up like that against you is almost to thin that its extremely improbable to make it through a campaign season without losing a little more support because you certainly aren't gaining any more support.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/opposition-to-obama-grows--strongly/2011/10/04/gIQAlch2ML_blog.html

If you are talking about likability, look at favorable ratings. Approval ratings are a bit different. If Obama loses, he will become a very popular ex-president, sort of like Jimmy Carter. Count on it.

Jimmy Carter is not a popular ex president. Most people in this country old enough to have been working at that time consider him to be the worst president they've ever had. Of course Obama seems to want to give Jimmy Carter a run for his money.