Why Obama Is in Trouble

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 8:21 PM GMT
    Why Obama Is in Trouble
    By Jay Cost

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-why-obama-trouble_648390.html

    When you see a new poll, what do you look at first? With the general election campaign nominally underway, most people would say that they look at the head-to-head matchup between President Obama and Mitt Romney.

    But I’m still intensely focused on the president’s job approval numbers.

    The reason has to do with my view of a presidential campaign when an incumbent is on the ballot. Based on my read of the history and the political science research on the subject, I’ve put together a rough outline of how the average voter makes up his mind. It looks something like this:

    Model%20of%20Elections.gif

    Basically, the vote choice begins with the broadest consideration of American politics – i.e. which party you affiliate with – and then on to how you think the country is doing. Together, those two factors likely determine whether you think the incumbent president has done a good job.

    All of that happens before the campaign has even begun. This serves as the backdrop for how you respond to the campaign. If, for instance, you are a Democrat who thinks the country is on the right track and Obama has done a good job, the hurdle Mitt Romney will have to jump is, for all intents and purposes, insuperable. If, on the other hand, you’re a partisan Republican who thinks the country is in terrible shape and Obama is awful, then the GOP already has your vote in the bag.

    The decisive variable here is your evaluation of the president. That will determine how persuasive one side or the other has to be to get your vote. And notice that the above picture includes the net campaign effects. In other words, what is the end result when the two sides deploy their hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising?

    Campaigns are important, but that does not mean they are decisive. The reason is that the two sides usually neutralize the other – both sides tend to be equally well-funded, their campaign strategists, media mavens, and other specialists tend to be equally skillful, and so on. Thus, their net effect tends to be pretty minimal.

    Accordingly, what we are usually left with his the following axiom: A president usually pulls in a vote share roughly equal to his job approval rating.

    This is not always the case – for instance, the George McGovern campaign in 1972 was such a disaster that Richard Nixon ended up winning a larger share of the vote than his approval rating would have suggested. Similarly, Jimmy Carter in 1980 had seen major defections among Democrats in terms of his job approval, but many of them voted for him anyway because Ronald Reagan and John Anderson were simply not acceptable choices. In most instances, though, this axiom holds true. Both 1972 and 1980, after all, saw the collapse of the Democratic coalition, something we are not going to see this time.

    Where does that leave Obama at the moment?

    After the back-to-back debacles of 1980 and 1984, the Democratic party essentially rebuilt its core coalition. Since 1988 the party has not fallen below 46 percent of the two party vote, either in the presidential contest or the national House race. That looks to be the core Democratic base of support in this country.

    If we go by his job approval, this is roughly all President Obama is holding at the moment. He pulls in a little bit more in most polls most of the time, but not very much. The most recent read from the RealClearPolitics average of polls has him at 46.8 percent approval. (And the bulk of those polls are either polls of adults or registered voters, which tend to be more favorable to Democrats than the actual electorate.)

    Moreover, the same holds true when we look at different groups. For this, we can turn to the Gallup poll, which offers a fantastic amount of data on a weekly basis. The following chart compares Obama’s job approval among whites, African Americans, and Hispanics (averaged over the last four weeks) against the performance of the Democratic candidate for president in 1988, 2004, and 2008.

    Democratic%20Presidential%20Support%20Am

    The last Democrat to win a majority of the white vote was Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Obviously, Democrats do not need to win a majority of whites to win the White House, but they need more than 37 percent.

    Note as well that Obama's numbers with African Americans and Hispanics are off their highs, at least at the moment. Contrary to what one hears from promulgators of the “Emerging Democratic Majority” thesis, there are swing voters in both groups – and it looks as though Obama is not holding them at the moment, either.

    What about partisan identification?

    Democratic%20Presidential%20Support%20Am

    On this front, Obama is really not doing well at all. He has the partisan Democrats mostly locked down, while partisan Republicans are mostly gone. But check out the independent vote. Most independents actually are partisans, insofar as they usually lean toward one group or another. Historically, Democrats have been able to count on at least 40 percent or so of the independent vote to behave like partisan Democrats. And that is about all Obama has right now.

    Finally, what about geographical regions?

    Democratic%20Presidential%20Support%20Am

    This is very bad news for President Obama. Most of the swing states are in the Midwest, and he is doing quite badly there at the moment, with approval numbers that correspond roughly to what Dukakis pulled in 1988.

    His numbers in the South are equally bad, and remember that he won 68 of the South’s 186 electoral votes. He will not do that this time around if he only wins 42 percent of the vote in the region.

    Obviously, things could pan out differently. The president’s job approval rating could improve, moving him above that magic line of 50 percent. Alternatively, the campaign this season could go so well for Obama that he does what few incumbents before him have managed, and win a substantial share of those who disapprove of his job performance.

    But with the economic outlook looking increasingly glum, and with Mitt Romney being well financed and reasonably acceptable, this president is probably going to struggle to get above 50 percent.

    Jay Cost is a staff writer for THE WEEKLY STANDARD and the author of Spoiled Rotten: How the Politics of Patronage Corrupted the Once Noble Democratic Party and Now Threatens the American Republic, available now wherever books are sold.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jul 11, 2012 8:25 PM GMT
    LOL ..... Do you have a Job? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 8:26 PM GMT
    you need to spend more time working on your saggy moobs and less posting these irrelevant, deceitful "articles."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 8:27 PM GMT
    GQjock saidLOL ..... Do you have a Job? icon_rolleyes.gif


    that would also imply he has a life, which we all know that ain't the case...
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Jul 11, 2012 8:29 PM GMT
    ROFL.

    "Obama is going to lose because a President's approval rating always predicts his vote share, except when it doesn't."

    "Romney is reasonably acceptable..."

    #epicfailwishfulthinking
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 8:36 PM GMT
    getnassty saidyou need to spend more time working on your saggy moobs and less posting these irrelevant, deceitful "articles."

    I normally should not respond, but many are not always able to differentiate muscle from fat in photos. Maybe my age leads you to believe one way. I go to the gym and lift pretty heavy. But you are the last one to comment on anyone's build. The last one. If you are in Long Beach, which I doubt, assuming you are a sock account, would be interesting to see who can press the most. From your photos, I would be surprised if you could press more than the empty bar. I'd be surprised if you even set foot in a gym. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 8:46 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    getnassty saidyou need to spend more time working on your saggy moobs and less posting these irrelevant, deceitful "articles."

    I normally should not respond, but many are not always able to differentiate muscle from fat in photos. Maybe my age leads you to believe one way. I go to the gym and lift pretty heavy. But you are the last one to comment on anyone's build. The last one. If you are in Long Beach, which I doubt, assuming you are a sock account, would be interesting to see who can press the most. From your photos, I would be surprised if you could press more than the empty bar. I'd be surprised if you even set foot in a gym. icon_lol.gif


    Actually, he looks pretty fit. Big doesn't equal strong.

    I do have to say that your shrillness is just continuing to tick up and up with every Romney flub and misstep. I fear for your sanity come November.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Jul 11, 2012 8:47 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    getnassty saidyou need to spend more time working on your saggy moobs and less posting these irrelevant, deceitful "articles."

    I normally should not respond, but many are not always able to differentiate muscle from fat in photos. Maybe my age leads you to believe one way. I go to the gym and lift pretty heavy. But you are the last one to comment on anyone's build. The last one. If you are in Long Beach, which I doubt, assuming you are a sock account, would be interesting to see who can press the most. From your photos, I would be surprised if you could press more than the empty bar. I'd be surprised if you even set foot in a gym. icon_lol.gif


    Actually, he looks pretty fit. Big doesn't equal strong.

    I do have to say that your shrillness is just continuing to tick up and up with every Romney flub and misstep. I fear for your sanity come November.


    Shrill he is, but the personal attack was indeed below-the-belt and uncalled for. Let's stick to slamming the right-wing ideas, not the person. We have to stop stooping to the Conservaposse's level.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 8:50 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    getnassty saidyou need to spend more time working on your saggy moobs and less posting these irrelevant, deceitful "articles."

    I normally should not respond, but many are not always able to differentiate muscle from fat in photos. Maybe my age leads you to believe one way. I go to the gym and lift pretty heavy. But you are the last one to comment on anyone's build. The last one. If you are in Long Beach, which I doubt, assuming you are a sock account, would be interesting to see who can press the most. From your photos, I would be surprised if you could press more than the empty bar. I'd be surprised if you even set foot in a gym. icon_lol.gif


    Actually, he looks pretty fit. Big doesn't equal strong.

    I do have to say that your shrillness is just continuing to tick up and up with every Romney flub and misstep. I fear for your sanity come November.


    Shrill he is, but the personal attack was indeed below-the-belt and uncalled for. Let's stick to slamming the right-wing ideas, not the person.

    I appreciate that. The issues are interesting enough. I would be surprised if that guy lasts very long around here anyway given his track record in his short time here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 9:00 PM GMT
    ^^
    kekekeke

    you're just mad because you're flop of a post back-fired on you.

    SEETHE!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 9:03 PM GMT
    IF OBAMA IS IN TROUBLE:


    Its because of the Foreign National Billionaire endless money pockets ADELSON, the Koch Bro's and the William Krystols and their Anti US put another country's interest first PAC's , spending their millions on advertising that are spinning facts into half truths and out and out lies to "MAKE OBAMA A ONE TERM PRESIDENT".


    Are you gay republican partisans pleased with how this election has our goverment on the auction block, being sold to the highest bidder ?

    Are you sheeple blind ??


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hey SoCal, You're the Republican Partisan I'm referring to in particular, Are you pleased with the purchase of our government, styled after a Highest Bidder Auction ?


    Remember, what you wrote about ignoring ? So lets have some answers, I really would like to know what you think of this mess created by the Citizens United Decision, which is the only reason 'Obama is in Trouble' if he is at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 9:12 PM GMT
    getnassty saidyou need to spend more time working on your saggy moobs and less posting these irrelevant, deceitful "articles."


    Was there any need for the personal attacks, just because a thread was created that you may of not liked. Look at all the propaganda threads created here at RJ about Mitt, look back at how down right mean and ruthless, they got with MRS Palin and her family, there was no depth to the depravity from the left here at RJ.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 9:19 PM GMT
    Can't Obama be in trouble for being lousy? He'd be in a lot more trouble if he were running against a real qualified candidate, but Mittens looks stupid, aloof and idiotic in speeches and his constant deer in the headlights look is almost too much to bear.
    No, Obama is not a great president, but Romney appears to be an incredibly bad choice by the idiotic right wing nut jobs if they were serious about beating him. Then again, the tea bag heavy congress voted again today to repeal healthcare reform instead of doing anything of substance, so republicans appear to be shooting themselves in every foot that is not currently in Romneys mouth.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jul 11, 2012 11:02 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    getnassty saidyou need to spend more time working on your saggy moobs and less posting these irrelevant, deceitful "articles."

    I normally should not respond, but many are not always able to differentiate muscle from fat in photos. Maybe my age leads you to believe one way. I go to the gym and lift pretty heavy. But you are the last one to comment on anyone's build. The last one. If you are in Long Beach, which I doubt, assuming you are a sock account, would be interesting to see who can press the most. From your photos, I would be surprised if you could press more than the empty bar. I'd be surprised if you even set foot in a gym. icon_lol.gif


    While I don't agree with the author here.. or SoCal's views, absolutely no reason to make some crude personal remark about SoCal's physique (which is pretty good) and focus on the article at hand.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2012 11:34 PM GMT
    HndsmKansan said
    socalfitness said
    getnassty saidyou need to spend more time working on your saggy moobs and less posting these irrelevant, deceitful "articles."

    I normally should not respond, but many are not always able to differentiate muscle from fat in photos. Maybe my age leads you to believe one way. I go to the gym and lift pretty heavy. But you are the last one to comment on anyone's build. The last one. If you are in Long Beach, which I doubt, assuming you are a sock account, would be interesting to see who can press the most. From your photos, I would be surprised if you could press more than the empty bar. I'd be surprised if you even set foot in a gym. icon_lol.gif


    While I don't agree with the author here.. or SoCal's views, absolutely no reason to make some crude personal remark about SoCal's physique (which is pretty good) and focus on the article at hand.

    Thanks Chris for the compliment. I think our friend will soon be moving on to other pastures.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 2:57 AM GMT
    [quote][cite]realifedad said[/cite] IF OBAMA IS IN TROUBLE:


    Its because of the Foreign National Billionaire endless money pockets ADELSON, the Koch Bro's and the William Krystols and their Anti US put another country's interest first PAC's , spending their millions on advertising that are spinning facts into half truths and out and out lies to "MAKE OBAMA A ONE TERM PRESIDENT".


    Are you gay republican partisans pleased with how this election has our goverment on the auction block, being sold to the highest bidder ?

    Are you sheeple blind ??


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hey SoCal, You're the Republican Partisan I'm referring to in particular, Are you pleased with the purchase of our government, styled after a Highest Bidder Auction ?


    Remember, what you wrote about ignoring ? So lets have some answers, I really would like to know what you think of this mess created by the Citizens United Decision, which is the only reason 'Obama is in Trouble' if he is at all.[


    Can't hear you yet SoCal ? LOL
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jul 12, 2012 3:45 AM GMT
    Let's see.
    You're quoting from a radical right wing propaganda BLOG.

    2cqo9x4.jpg

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2012 1:37 PM GMT


    Well....getnasty is an incorrect avatar name...alreadynasty is a little more appropriate.

    Look getnasty, we get it you don't like Socal, but you're going a lot further than being frustrated or angry at his POV.

    If you want to get mad at what he's posting, fine. Many do.

    If you start in with nasty personal attacks about body and life and hounding Socal with them, few are going to have any time for you, or bother with you, and I assume you are here because you want to be heard.

    Two people got very nasty with each other in the political forums recently and got a temporary suspension. As a result, we're all trying to refrain from going back down that road.

    Capiche?

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jul 12, 2012 1:53 PM GMT
    smartmoney said
    No, Obama is not a great president, but Romney appears to be an incredibly bad choice by the idiotic right wing nut jobs if they were serious about beating him.



    I think I am having deja vu circa 1980. I remember quite vividly these same argument when Ronald Reagan was the GOP nominee. "He's a B actor turned politician", "He'll never be President", "He's a joke" blah-blah-blah and yet he went on to arguably be one of the great Presidents (I know not everyone here would agree) and re-elected in a landslide.
  • mke_bt

    Posts: 707

    Jul 12, 2012 9:31 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    smartmoney said
    No, Obama is not a great president, but Romney appears to be an incredibly bad choice by the idiotic right wing nut jobs if they were serious about beating him.



    I think I am having deja vu circa 1980. I remember quite vividly these same argument when Ronald Reagan was the GOP nominee. "He's a B actor turned politician", "He'll never be President", "He's a joke" blah-blah-blah and yet he went on to arguably be one of the great Presidents (I know not everyone here would agree) and re-elected in a landslide.


    Yes, but Ronald Reagan had an inherent likability and charm, something I feel Mitt Romney is sorely lacking.