The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 15, 2021, 06:58:06 PM

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 331 332 333 334 335 [336] 337 338 339 340 341 ... 410
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1086048 times)
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,506
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8375 on: August 03, 2011, 10:07:56 AM »

CNN:

45% Approve, 52% Disapprove

Interviews with 860 adult Americans conducted by telephone by ORC International on August 1, 2011. The margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. The sample includes 716 interviews among landline respondents and 144 interviews among cell phone respondents.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/08/02/rel12a.pdf

PPP:

46% Approve, 48% Disapprove - 50% Favorable, 44% Unfavorable

Public Policy Polling, 1000 Registered Voters, MoE 3.1%, July 28, 2011 - July 31, 2011

http://dailykos.com/weeklypolling/2011/7/28


As significant --

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course this is already obsolete due to the resolution of the budget impasses.  Such might suggest how President Obama runs for re-election. Hint: Truman 1948.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,506
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8376 on: August 03, 2011, 01:15:17 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

All other shown GOP possibilities do execrably against the President. In view of the debt-ceiling debate and law even this poll may be obsolete.   

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NV_0803513.pdf

Current map:


 


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 2010 or 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)Sad

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




           
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 135
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    90
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 67
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 34
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 73
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   16





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 135
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    90
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 69
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 0
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  11
orange                        close, but Obama loses against any major Republican candidate 3
Obama wins against all but  Romney 35
Obama ties one candidate, but defeats everyone else  15
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 87
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 0
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  18  



Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,904
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8377 on: August 03, 2011, 01:23:52 PM »



Of course this is already obsolete due to the resolution of the budget impasses.  Such might suggest how President Obama runs for re-election. Hint: Truman 1948.

The problem is, the Democratic Senate is led by Harry Reid (D - NV).
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,506
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8378 on: August 03, 2011, 01:27:15 PM »



Of course this is already obsolete due to the resolution of the budget impasses.  Such might suggest how President Obama runs for re-election. Hint: Truman 1948.

The problem is, the Democratic Senate is led by Harry Reid (D - NV).

Harry Reid isn't up for re-election, but lots of Democratic Senators are. The President will run against the House of Representatives -- especially freshman Tea Party types.   
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 50,607
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8379 on: August 03, 2011, 04:48:54 PM »

The only problem with that strategy is that whoever the GOP nominee is, will be attacking Obama's record, particulary on the economy. Truman didn't have that occuring in 1948, as the economy had stabilized somewhat from the post-war volatility seen in 1946, which had helped produce the GOP landslide that year. Also, Dewey ran a very week campaign with little substance, and virtually no criticism of Truman at all.

Another mark against that type of campaign is that it was factually inaccurate. One could hardly call the Congress that passed the Marshall plan as "Do-Nothing". In the age of Internet, such a false narrative, even if picked up by the mainstream media, has less impact then it did when newspapers ruled the day almost unchallenged.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,506
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8380 on: August 03, 2011, 11:33:51 PM »

The only problem with that strategy is that whoever the GOP nominee is, will be attacking Obama's record, particulary on the economy. Truman didn't have that occuring in 1948, as the economy had stabilized somewhat from the post-war volatility seen in 1946, which had helped produce the GOP landslide that year. Also, Dewey ran a very week campaign with little substance, and virtually no criticism of Truman at all.


1. My suggestion is only that. The nominee could completely change the narrative.

2. For obvious reasons, the President will not run against the Senate which ordinarily originates few bills.

3. The list of achievements by the 111th Congress overwhelms what the 112th Congress has achieved or is likely to achieve. Indeed even the lame-duck session is more impressive than what has since transpired.

4. I expect the Republicans to offer economic 'reforms' likely to transfer more income and wealth to the super-rich with only vague promises of "growth" at the expense of lower wages, a ravaged environment, lax safety standards on the job, huge cuts in social programs, perhaps replacement of the income tax with a national sales tax. These might not be popular.

5. Republicans will have culpability for any 'double dip' in this Depression for having ensured that the only stimulus possible is tax cuts for the super-rich.

6. Congress is extremely unpopular now. It is hard to see how an approval rating of 14% can be redeemed short of a complete renunciation of what it has done so far. People will be ready for a re-make of Congress, and a return to what Americans knew with the 111th will look wonderful by contrast. 
 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Harry Truman sold the Marshall Plan as an issue of national security -- to stop Communist subversion of Europe. At least that Congress did something. This one has achieved only a budget deal that ensures a continuing Depression that serves only to enhance the power of the Ruling Elite of private industry over the rest of us.

The Tea Party clique is shrill and extreme. Extremists can win one election fair-and square; to win the next one in a 'moderate' bailiwick the extremists must either pull the public into its radicalism (which hasn't happened) or either rig or cancel the next election and subsequent ones.   

The Republicans are more likely to lose their majority in the House than the Democrats are likely to hold onto the Senate. Until I see polls on the approval of the Presidency over the next few days I will suspend my prediction on the President winning or losing. (My map will remain active for now but even I now take it with a piece of salt the size of one of the monoliths at Stonehenge).  Tea Party extremists won a huge number of seats in the House in 2010 -- some in districts that now lean D or are nearly neutral. I predict that Representatives who far better serve out-of-district plutocrats than their own constituents will be one-term Representatives. Constituents of those districts (I am but one in such a district) will decide who better serves Texas oil barons and Wall Street profiteers than people in their districts.

1946 was a year following the long Crisis Era that contained the Great Depression and World War II which included one of the most dangerous times first for the survival of responsible government (America could have gone sharply Left [Marxism] or Right [KKK/fascism/military dictatorship]) due to domestic distress and the chaos that such can bring and then the danger of military victories by gangster regimes intent on conquering America or at least rendering it prostrate. We are entering times little less dangerous. Economic distress will not go away soon -- but the Hard Right can, if fully in charge, ensure that America's plutocrats make no sacrifices while others suffer.

In 1946, price controls and rationing  intended to ensure that people weren't priced out of the bare necessities expired. A free market is impossible in a major war; unleashing the market to permit greater productivity to meet demand was suddenly a good idea. In 1946 the economic problem was best described as too little civilian production to meet civilian demand. In 2011 such does not describe reality. We do not have a fault of inadequate productivity; we have inadequate demand to meet our productive capacity. Without people showing the willingness or ability to buy what can be produced, even that productive capacity will surely go obsolete or be scrapped. I don't know what you think of the generational cycle of about 75 to 80 years... but this year is analogous to something between 1931 and 1937. 2006 was a good political analogue to 1930, and 2007 was a good economic analogue to 1929. Go figure.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,506
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8381 on: August 04, 2011, 07:49:00 AM »
« Edited: August 04, 2011, 09:45:14 AM by pbrower2a »

First August and post "Deal"  poll.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?ReleaseID=1632&What=&strArea=;&strTime=0

Comment: it looks much like 2000 again at this stage. A toady of fantastically-corrupt Governor Rick Scott could be worth maybe 10,000 votes.


Current map:


 


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 2010 or 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)Sad

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




           
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 135
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    61
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 67
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 63
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 73
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%   16





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 135
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin    61
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 69
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 0
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  11
orange                        close, but Obama loses against any major Republican candidate 3
Obama wins against all but  Romney 35
Obama ties one candidate, but defeats everyone else  44
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 87
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 0
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  18  




Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,904
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8382 on: August 04, 2011, 08:37:43 AM »

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45, +1.

Disapprove 54%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 22%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 40%, -1.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,506
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8383 on: August 04, 2011, 09:46:18 AM »

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45, +1.

Disapprove 54%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 22%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 40%, -1.


Surprisingly stable, I'd say.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,904
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8384 on: August 04, 2011, 02:35:58 PM »

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 45, +1.

Disapprove 54%, u.

"Strongly Approve" is at 22%, u.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 40%, -1.


Surprisingly stable, I'd say.


I've been saying that for the last week!  Smiley
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,904
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8385 on: August 04, 2011, 02:43:59 PM »

Gallup - Obama

Approve:  41%, -1

Disapprove:  52%, +2

Happy birthday, Mr. President.

(Well, since it's Gallup, it is a gag gift.)
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,051


Political Matrix
E: -0.84, S: -3.04

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8386 on: August 04, 2011, 02:57:03 PM »

I anticipate the lower the markets continue to slide, the lower his numbers will drop.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,638


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8387 on: August 04, 2011, 02:59:52 PM »

I anticipate the lower the markets continue to slide, the lower his numbers will drop.

Excellent analysis.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 50,607
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8388 on: August 04, 2011, 03:32:04 PM »

The only problem with that strategy is that whoever the GOP nominee is, will be attacking Obama's record, particulary on the economy. Truman didn't have that occuring in 1948, as the economy had stabilized somewhat from the post-war volatility seen in 1946, which had helped produce the GOP landslide that year. Also, Dewey ran a very week campaign with little substance, and virtually no criticism of Truman at all.


1. My suggestion is only that. The nominee could completely change the narrative.

2. For obvious reasons, the President will not run against the Senate which ordinarily originates few bills.

3. The list of achievements by the 111th Congress overwhelms what the 112th Congress has achieved or is likely to achieve. Indeed even the lame-duck session is more impressive than what has since transpired.

4. I expect the Republicans to offer economic 'reforms' likely to transfer more income and wealth to the super-rich with only vague promises of "growth" at the expense of lower wages, a ravaged environment, lax safety standards on the job, huge cuts in social programs, perhaps replacement of the income tax with a national sales tax. These might not be popular.

5. Republicans will have culpability for any 'double dip' in this Depression for having ensured that the only stimulus possible is tax cuts for the super-rich.

6. Congress is extremely unpopular now. It is hard to see how an approval rating of 14% can be redeemed short of a complete renunciation of what it has done so far. People will be ready for a re-make of Congress, and a return to what Americans knew with the 111th will look wonderful by contrast. 
 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Harry Truman sold the Marshall Plan as an issue of national security -- to stop Communist subversion of Europe. At least that Congress did something. This one has achieved only a budget deal that ensures a continuing Depression that serves only to enhance the power of the Ruling Elite of private industry over the rest of us.

The Tea Party clique is shrill and extreme. Extremists can win one election fair-and square; to win the next one in a 'moderate' bailiwick the extremists must either pull the public into its radicalism (which hasn't happened) or either rig or cancel the next election and subsequent ones.   

The Republicans are more likely to lose their majority in the House than the Democrats are likely to hold onto the Senate. Until I see polls on the approval of the Presidency over the next few days I will suspend my prediction on the President winning or losing. (My map will remain active for now but even I now take it with a piece of salt the size of one of the monoliths at Stonehenge).  Tea Party extremists won a huge number of seats in the House in 2010 -- some in districts that now lean D or are nearly neutral. I predict that Representatives who far better serve out-of-district plutocrats than their own constituents will be one-term Representatives. Constituents of those districts (I am but one in such a district) will decide who better serves Texas oil barons and Wall Street profiteers than people in their districts.

1946 was a year following the long Crisis Era that contained the Great Depression and World War II which included one of the most dangerous times first for the survival of responsible government (America could have gone sharply Left [Marxism] or Right [KKK/fascism/military dictatorship]) due to domestic distress and the chaos that such can bring and then the danger of military victories by gangster regimes intent on conquering America or at least rendering it prostrate. We are entering times little less dangerous. Economic distress will not go away soon -- but the Hard Right can, if fully in charge, ensure that America's plutocrats make no sacrifices while others suffer.

In 1946, price controls and rationing  intended to ensure that people weren't priced out of the bare necessities expired. A free market is impossible in a major war; unleashing the market to permit greater productivity to meet demand was suddenly a good idea. In 1946 the economic problem was best described as too little civilian production to meet civilian demand. In 2011 such does not describe reality. We do not have a fault of inadequate productivity; we have inadequate demand to meet our productive capacity. Without people showing the willingness or ability to buy what can be produced, even that productive capacity will surely go obsolete or be scrapped. I don't know what you think of the generational cycle of about 75 to 80 years... but this year is analogous to something between 1931 and 1937. 2006 was a good political analogue to 1930, and 2007 was a good economic analogue to 1929. Go figure.

This last paragraph is misleading. It insinuates that I made some error of analysis regarding the 1946 elections. Something which I only mentioned in passing to respond to a comparison you had made, that of 1948 to 2012. To respond back, you changed the comparison from one of mostly politcal criteria to one of mostly economic criteria. The exact details behind the economic situation are irrelevant as far as the comparison you initially made, which is the one I responded to. Economic conditions adverse to an incubment President produced midterm victories for the GOP in both 1946 and 2010. The only difference is the economic situation which produced the GOP victory in 1946 was largely gone by 1948. The same cannot be said of the economic conditions that produced the 2010 election results. Unlike Truman, President Obama will not be able to escape criticism for the economic conditions, from a far more aggressive GOP candidate, then Dewey. Unless of course Pawlenty is somehow nominated.

The problem with many of the rest of your points is that your personal ideological view of the world is present in them. Most voters don't think in such ways and such surely you can acknowledge the flaws behind many of the predictions.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,506
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8389 on: August 04, 2011, 04:24:22 PM »

The only problem with that strategy is that whoever the GOP nominee is, will be attacking Obama's record, particulary on the economy. Truman didn't have that occuring in 1948, as the economy had stabilized somewhat from the post-war volatility seen in 1946, which had helped produce the GOP landslide that year. Also, Dewey ran a very week campaign with little substance, and virtually no criticism of Truman at all.


1. My suggestion is only that. The nominee could completely change the narrative.

2. For obvious reasons, the President will not run against the Senate which ordinarily originates few bills.

3. The list of achievements by the 111th Congress overwhelms what the 112th Congress has achieved or is likely to achieve. Indeed even the lame-duck session is more impressive than what has since transpired.

4. I expect the Republicans to offer economic 'reforms' likely to transfer more income and wealth to the super-rich with only vague promises of "growth" at the expense of lower wages, a ravaged environment, lax safety standards on the job, huge cuts in social programs, perhaps replacement of the income tax with a national sales tax. These might not be popular.

5. Republicans will have culpability for any 'double dip' in this Depression for having ensured that the only stimulus possible is tax cuts for the super-rich.

6. Congress is extremely unpopular now. It is hard to see how an approval rating of 14% can be redeemed short of a complete renunciation of what it has done so far. People will be ready for a re-make of Congress, and a return to what Americans knew with the 111th will look wonderful by contrast. 
 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Harry Truman sold the Marshall Plan as an issue of national security -- to stop Communist subversion of Europe. At least that Congress did something. This one has achieved only a budget deal that ensures a continuing Depression that serves only to enhance the power of the Ruling Elite of private industry over the rest of us.

The Tea Party clique is shrill and extreme. Extremists can win one election fair-and square; to win the next one in a 'moderate' bailiwick the extremists must either pull the public into its radicalism (which hasn't happened) or either rig or cancel the next election and subsequent ones.   

The Republicans are more likely to lose their majority in the House than the Democrats are likely to hold onto the Senate. Until I see polls on the approval of the Presidency over the next few days I will suspend my prediction on the President winning or losing. (My map will remain active for now but even I now take it with a piece of salt the size of one of the monoliths at Stonehenge).  Tea Party extremists won a huge number of seats in the House in 2010 -- some in districts that now lean D or are nearly neutral. I predict that Representatives who far better serve out-of-district plutocrats than their own constituents will be one-term Representatives. Constituents of those districts (I am but one in such a district) will decide who better serves Texas oil barons and Wall Street profiteers than people in their districts.

1946 was a year following the long Crisis Era that contained the Great Depression and World War II which included one of the most dangerous times first for the survival of responsible government (America could have gone sharply Left [Marxism] or Right [KKK/fascism/military dictatorship]) due to domestic distress and the chaos that such can bring and then the danger of military victories by gangster regimes intent on conquering America or at least rendering it prostrate. We are entering times little less dangerous. Economic distress will not go away soon -- but the Hard Right can, if fully in charge, ensure that America's plutocrats make no sacrifices while others suffer.

In 1946, price controls and rationing  intended to ensure that people weren't priced out of the bare necessities expired. A free market is impossible in a major war; unleashing the market to permit greater productivity to meet demand was suddenly a good idea. In 1946 the economic problem was best described as too little civilian production to meet civilian demand. In 2011 such does not describe reality. We do not have a fault of inadequate productivity; we have inadequate demand to meet our productive capacity. Without people showing the willingness or ability to buy what can be produced, even that productive capacity will surely go obsolete or be scrapped. I don't know what you think of the generational cycle of about 75 to 80 years... but this year is analogous to something between 1931 and 1937. 2006 was a good political analogue to 1930, and 2007 was a good economic analogue to 1929. Go figure.

This last paragraph is misleading. It insinuates that I made some error of analysis regarding the 1946 elections. Something which I only mentioned in passing to respond to a comparison you had made, that of 1948 to 2012. To respond back, you changed the comparison from one of mostly politcal criteria to one of mostly economic criteria. The exact details behind the economic situation are irrelevant as far as the comparison you initially made, which is the one I responded to. Economic conditions adverse to an incubment President produced midterm victories for the GOP in both 1946 and 2010. The only difference is the economic situation which produced the GOP victory in 1946 was largely gone by 1948. The same cannot be said of the economic conditions that produced the 2010 election results. Unlike Truman, President Obama will not be able to escape criticism for the economic conditions, from a far more aggressive GOP candidate, then Dewey. Unless of course Pawlenty is somehow nominated.

The problem with many of the rest of your points is that your personal ideological view of the world is present in them. Most voters don't think in such ways and such surely you can acknowledge the flaws behind many of the predictions.


That may be my opinion of economic reality -- but the effect of productive capacity outstripping demand is obvious enough. The tendency with excess capacity is that it eventually disappears, and so does the potential productivity. This time is more like the early 1930s than like the late 1940s, Productivity was the least of America's problems in the early 1930s; in the 1940s it was the incomplete transition from a wartime economy to a civilian economy.

Demand must grow if we are to get out of this Depression. If people are scared to buy what the economy produces, then we are still in deep trouble.  But I would argue that the economic distress that we now have is going to be worsened by austerity measures.

We have a return to "Hoovernomics" as dictated by the Hard Right, including the Tea Party cult. For that the GOP will pay. The President can run against that and almost certainly will.

Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 50,607
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8390 on: August 04, 2011, 05:18:04 PM »

I wasn't talking about the analysis of economic cycles when I said your personal ideology clouded the analysis. I was talking about the other points.

Again, these economic facts regarding different economic circumstances have nothing to do with the original comparison which you established, not me. By the changing the subject, which is what you have basically done, you have ventured as far out of the relevancy of this thread and thus to a topic which is frankly boring me. Only thing interesting about this whole affairs is that by changing the comparison to one of "which economic circumstances best compares to now" from "the success or failure of pursuing a 1948 style reelection strategy", you have succeeded in weakening your initial comparison in an attempt to refute my point. You have just said that the economic situation we have now is entirely different from what the counrty dealt with in the mid 40's. Isn't that what I was saying?

How can Obama run against Austerity when he has embraced it and in the process conceded several critical points along the way to the GOP that would have been crucial for him to stand his ground on, were he to engage in such a strategy? He hasn't been planning to run as Truman in 1948, he has been attempting to be Clinton in 1996, and he has thrown leftist economics under the bus to do it. If he were to backtrack, and suddenly try to claim that deficits don't matter, I think that would cause more problems for him then it would solve.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,904
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8391 on: August 04, 2011, 06:18:07 PM »

Obama basically cannot be Truman in 1948, or Clinton in 1996.  The Republicans do not control Congress, only one house of it.  There is another problem.  For two years, Obama's party held both houses with large majorities, and did very little.  Obamacare is both expensive and unpopular.

Obama in a Reagan 1984 situation.  Unlike Reagan (or Clinton), Obama is not sitting on to of a good economy.  The key question will be, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"  If the answer is no, Obama's chances dwindle.
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8392 on: August 04, 2011, 09:09:05 PM »
« Edited: August 05, 2011, 12:04:39 AM by Joementum »

Obama basically cannot be Truman in 1948, or Clinton in 1996.  The Republicans do not control Congress, only one house of it.  There is another problem.  For two years, Obama's party held both houses with large majorities, and did very little.  Obamacare is both expensive and unpopular.

What difference does only one house make?  The Republican Party has effective veto power over any Obama initiatives for the final 2 years of his first term. And a handful of less extreme Republican senators, but still Republican, had veto power for most of Obama's first 2 years too.  Obama will have had a supermajority for only 1/8 of his first term and even then a couple of conservative Democrats and one Independent who campaigned for John McCain had veto power.  So he made some progress his first two years, but it was limited as he watered down policies enough for them to pass congress, and then the GOP won the House, and he ran into total gridlock and the recovery stalled.  I'm a bit skeptical he'll try to make this case but I think it's a solid one if he did.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,506
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8393 on: August 04, 2011, 11:05:55 PM »

Obama basically cannot be Truman in 1948, or Clinton in 1996.  The Republicans do not control Congress, only one house of it.  There is another problem.  For two years, Obama's party held both houses with large majorities, and did very little.  Obamacare is both expensive and unpopular.

If you really want to get fussy. then maybe you  can make much of the fact that neither of the other years of previous elections had either a zero or a four in them.

1. Control of one House is enough to render such legislative power that the President ordinarily has nominal only. Sure the President can propose, but about the only legislation that can succeed is that in which the President accedes to the GOP majority in the House or something so trivial as naming a new post office.

2. The GOP has become a lockstep Party that acts as rigidly as a Communist Party almost all the time, although Tea Party "dissensions" may have been all for show this time. This is unprecedented in American history.   The 2012 election will show whether Americans like ideological rigidity in a Party.

3. The Republicans won a bunch of House seats that ordinarily are Democratic-majority     . That is either a long-term trend in which Americans are going to the Far Right -- or a temporary and reversible phenomenon. You know which way I want to see things go -- but that is not part of my analysis. Furthermore I find it hard to believe that people in moderate, slightly R-leaning districts want the Hard Line Republicans elected,. The 2010 election was a triumph not of flexible and moderate Republicans but instead of people who truly believe that the social optimum is a nation under complete control of Corporate America and dedicated to the religious values of Protestant fundamentalism. 

4. Voter turnout will be far higher in 2012 than in 2010. The issues will be heated,. and the Democrats have valid alternatives to just about any Republican who flipped a House seat in 2010.

5. Republicans scared senior citizens who voted above the national average for John McCain in 2008 with the Ryan proposal to turn Medicare into a  voucher program. This will be trouble even in the South, an area in which Republicans have done in all years of Presidential elections except when Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter was running since 1972. Although liberal Democrats have practically no chance of winning many Southern seats (except in black0majority districts), Blue Dogs can -- even if voters dislike President Obama.

6. People may be wiser to some of the shenanigans of the GOP front groups in 2012 than in 2010.

In essence, a victory for moderates means a victory for Democrats... liberals in the North and Blue Dog conservatives in the South.   The Republicans have cast off almost all moderates, a tendency likely to continue in some Senate primaries.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Are you better off than you were four years ago?" In 2008 the US economy was on a course very similar to the meltdown of 1929-1932. In 2012 that will be a point of comparison. In 2008 people were scared of a replay of the Great Depression. Does being scared of another Great Depression  seem like something better than what they can have in 2012?

People want jobs -- not tax cuts for some plutocrats who have yet to show any willingness to hire more people. Budget cuts are poor substitutes for jobs -- and they are substitutes, and not causes, of job growth.  So are other possible items on the GOP/Tea Party agenda.   
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,904
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8394 on: August 05, 2011, 12:21:53 AM »

Oh, please, you had the same situation with Reagan, a small majority in the Senate and an increasingly hostile House; his attempts to run against Tip O'Neil failed.  As for the Tea Party, as noted, they didn't get everything they wanted, because of the Senate.

Obama would have to do what Clinton did, and triangulate.  When he tried with Democrats in the Senate, he got shot down.  Then he lapsed into passivity.

I doubt that this shift to the GOP is reversible.  Further, Obama, the incumbent, seems to be much less popular than Obama the candidate.  As for seniors, Obama was the one promoting Medicare cuts, and Obamacare, one he said would solve everything, hasn't.

People are wiser to how Obama will do as president, because they've him do it for four years (in 2012).  "Yes we can" is rapidly becoming "No he hasn't."  He's losing groups across the boards; he's only up with a majority with Democrats, African Americans, and people with advanced degrees.  There is a fair amount of over in that group.

If the economy improves by January, he had good shot; if after that, the economy doesn't clear up, he's done for.
Logged
Penelope
Scifiguy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,524
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8395 on: August 05, 2011, 12:28:36 AM »

I am positive neither pbrower or JJ's analyses are biased by their political beliefs at all.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,506
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8396 on: August 05, 2011, 10:12:37 AM »

Oh, please, you had the same situation with Reagan, a small majority in the Senate and an increasingly hostile House; his attempts to run against Tip O'Neil failed.  As for the Tea Party, as noted, they didn't get everything they wanted, because of the Senate.

True. Something had to pass the Senate, but some things couldn't. I am of the opinion that President Obama smoked out the Republicans to expose their priorities that can be used against them in 2012.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Political necessity and economic good are often at ends. Except for the House Republican majority that won the 2010 elections the Debt Ceiling would not be an issue this time.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
.

It is eminently reversible. All of the freshman GOP Republicans have exposed their positions, and those will not sit well with moderates. Midterm elections have far smaller turnout, and the liberals who stayed home in November 2010 won't stay home in November 2012 when the political stakes are more obvious -- and are higher. Extremists -- most of the new Republican Representatives and some veteran "converts" to the Tea Party agenda -- will be vulnerable in most traditionally "moderate" districts. Extremists are always vulnerable except in ultra-safe seats.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rasmussen polls have been remarkably stable over the last few days for the President. The question may be whether the Republicans have won Americans over to the idea that more poverty for the masses for greater wealth and power to the plutocratic class will create prosperity that all can enjoy. Polls for the approval of Congress are uniformly low. Ultra-safe seats may protect the likes of Charles Rangell and Jeb Hensearling, but when many moderate districts have Representatives  tailor-made for districts in which ranching and the oil industry prevail,  then you can see what is possible.

The budgetary process is never pretty because only then do the core values of political leaders come to the fore.  But when  one adds political polarization and hard times, the process gets extremely ugly. If the Democrats can convince people that a GOP majority means "Starve Grandma" and "Price Grandpa into the grave instead of to medical treatment for his prostate cancer", then you can see how that goes.   

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Debt Ceiling deal practically ensures at least five more years of Hoovernomics that will prevent any recovery barring a major shift in the balance of political power. The Republicans can challenge it only by insisting upon even more drastic measures (like even further tax cuts for the super-rich, a balanced-budget amendment, cutting or eliminating the minimum wage, eviscerating laws protecting the environment, and selling off the public sector); the Democrats have less of a stake in its strictures. President Obama has less of a stake in the Debt Ceiling than does Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, or Eric Cantor.

I cannot predict the effect upon the chance of President Obama to get re-elected. What may matter more is the sort of leadership that Republican candidates for President show. Mitt Romney stayed out of the fray and then jumped on the GOP "Obama is terrible!" bandwagon after putting his wet finger into the wind. 
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8397 on: August 05, 2011, 10:18:29 AM »

The Democratic House under Reagan was a different animal from today's Republican House.  Obamacare mostly hasn't gone into effect yet.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,107
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8398 on: August 05, 2011, 10:21:09 AM »

Rasmussen:

47% Approve (+2)
52% Disapprove (-2)

24% Strongly Approve (+2)
39% Strongly Disapprove (-1)
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,904
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8399 on: August 05, 2011, 10:39:22 AM »

Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47, +2.

Disapprove 52%, -2.

"Strongly Approve" is at 24%, +2.  "Strongly Disapprove" is at 39%, -1.

Either some improvement for Obama, or a bad sample.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 331 332 333 334 335 [336] 337 338 339 340 341 ... 410  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.274 seconds with 10 queries.