Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
A year left: Obama running against history
Topic Started: Nov 7 2011, 01:29 PM (882 Views)
Jim Miller
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Quote:
 
A year left: Obama running against history


With today marking the one-year countdown to Election Day 2012 and his approval rating stuck in the low 40s, President Obama will have to defy American electoral history if he is to win re-election.

At 43 percent approval in a Gallup poll conducted Oct. 28-30, Mr. Obama recently referred to himself as an “underdog” — with good reason. Of all the presidents since World War II whose job-approval scores were lower than 50 percent one year before Election Day, only one went on to win a second term.

That was President Nixon, whose job approval stood at 49 percent in November 1971. He rebounded to defeat Democrat George McGovern in a landslide in 1972.

Mr. Obama does have some advantages. He is still a formidable fundraiser, having amassed more than $150 million for his campaign and the Democratic National Committee this year.

Also, his re-election operation is more robust than any of the GOP camps, which are waging a long and costly primary battle. Mr. Obama’s campaign is able to build on a 50-state network from 2008, an email list of more than 9 million potential supporters and an experienced staff with unequaled savvy in digital marketing and social networking.

In early polling of head-to-head matchups with potential GOP candidates, Mr. Obama comes out on top in nearly every instance. One poll in the battleground state of Florida this week showed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney tied with Mr. Obama.

Those factors give Democrats hope that Mr. Obama can pull out a victory.

“It’s too early to write the script or the strategy, but here’s what I know: The odds are 2012 will be close,” said Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, the presidential campaign manager for Al Gore in 2000. “There are so many factors that will determine the outcome of the election next year: mood of the country, opponents, money and message and changing demographics of the election.”

The popularity of presidential incumbents at the three-year mark has ranged from Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower’s high of 78 percent in November 1955 to Democrat Jimmy Carter’s low of 32 percent in November 1979. Mr. Eisenhower had no trouble defeating Adlai Stevenson in 1956. Mr. Carter lost, overwhelmingly, to Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson, in the midst of the Vietnam War, had a popularity rating of 42 percent in November 1967; he chose not to run for re-election in 1968. The only president since World War II to lose re-election with a 50-plus approval rating in his third year was Republican George H.W. Bush, who stood at 59 percent job approval in November 1991 but lost to Bill Clinton in a three-way race in 1992.

The prospect of a third-party candidate in 2012, perhaps someone with the support of the tea party movement, intrigues Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

“If we have third-party or independent candidates, it is possible for Obama to have a low- to mid-40s approval rating and win,” Mr. Sabato said. “Nixon ‘68 and Clinton ‘92 each got 43 percent of the vote. [Woodrow] Wilson and [Abraham] Lincoln [in 1912 and 1860, respectively] received around 40 percent of the vote in multicandidate fields. The structure of the ballot will matter enormously, depending on whether we have additional candidates and who they are.”

But Mr. Sabato cautioned that job-approval numbers are meaningful only in the late summer or early fall of the election year.

“Presidential approval one full year out is not helpful in determining what will occur in November 2012,” Mr. Sabato said. “The old rule used to be that a president had to have approval in the 50 percent range at election time to get a second term. But George W. Bush had 48 percent in early November 2004 and still won. His superior financing and organization pulled him over the finish line against John Kerry.”

Another statistical guide that has been much discussed is the unemployment rate’s impact on a president’s political fortunes. No president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has won a second term when the unemployment rate was higher than 7.2 percent. Reagan won in 1984 with a jobless rate at 7.2 percent.

The unemployment rate has been 9 percent or higher for most of the year, but Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said Mr. Obama still could win.

“Of course he could be elected with that because he has got a better strategy for helping heal the wounds of this country,” Mr. Geithner said.
LINK
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Somehow I doubt if the President is terribly worried about running against history. That was his experience in 2008 when he became the first black to be elected President of the United State4s. But, historically, Truman overcame an even lower rating prior to his election. and the fact is that he3 holds a significant lead in the polls over each currently possible and probable Republican candidate. So, maybe history is on his side.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Unfortunately for the opposition, History will not appear on any presidential ballots. History does show the opposition should have a pretty good chance of winning this election *IF* they nominate candidates who appeal to more voters than just the right wing lunatic fringe. Coming up with a candidate that appeals to that fringe is easy; finding one who is palatable by the middle-of-the-roaders and independent voters is the key.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
History looks at IFs? Quantum history perhaps.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

The US jobs picture is looking much better. With a year to go, that will probably determine his re-election chances. This article appeared today in the Canadian Globe & Mail business section. I find their analysis & predictions are a lot more accurate, since they don't have any political irons in the US fire

LINK
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Nor anything at risk.

Their analysis shows job creation barely meets new entrant needs: "The headline job creation number, of late stubbornly below the 100,000 to 120,000 per month needed just to absorb new entrants into the U.S. labour force, has become somewhat misleading. For several months now, revisions that get less attention have made the picture look somewhat rosier. In August, for example, the original report said no jobs were created. The latest estimate is 105,000."

Their analysis shows job creation is not result of government actions like stimulus: "Despite lost construction jobs, the private sector added 104,000. The government shed 24,000 jobs, mostly in state-level non-education fields. Total government employment is now back to the level of 2006. Since private sector jobs ultimately pay for much of the public sector, this rebalancing is welcome."

No doubt Obama will take credit, not to defeat Republicans, but public opinion against him. Obama's Biggest Opponent: Voters: "...Regardless of the Republican nominee, those on the Obama team recognize that their biggest obstacle is voter disappointment with his performance, particularly on the economy.... In most national surveys, Obama's approval rating is running around 45 percent. (Some top Democrats worry that the actual number among likely voters is lower.) Even more ominous, more than two-thirds of Americans surveyed routinely say the country is on the wrong track, the highest level in decades. On both fronts, those numbers more resemble the profile of presidential losers than of winners.... Things always change in politics, but that would defy history...."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I think there are enough guys like me on election day, to throw all these odds out the window. I won't vote for Obama or any of the current crop of Republican front runners. Ron Paul ha smy vote or if I decide against him next fall, I'll write in somebody.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Chris
Nov 8 2011, 02:38 AM
Their analysis shows job creation is not result of government actions like stimulus: "Despite lost construction jobs, the private sector added 104,000. The government shed 24,000 jobs, mostly in state-level non-education fields. Total government employment is now back to the level of 2006. Since private sector jobs ultimately pay for much of the public sector, this rebalancing is welcome."

Or, perhaps, the stimulus wasn't large enough. I've heard people say that Roosevelt's policies were not effective at bringing the US out of the Depression, but it was World War II that finally did it.

Wasn't World War II nothing but a HUGE stimulus package putting? It put millions back to work both in and out of uniform and spent billions on military hardware - hardware that was consumed as fast as we could crank it out?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ngc1514
Nov 8 2011, 03:31 AM
Chris
Nov 8 2011, 02:38 AM
Their analysis shows job creation is not result of government actions like stimulus: "Despite lost construction jobs, the private sector added 104,000. The government shed 24,000 jobs, mostly in state-level non-education fields. Total government employment is now back to the level of 2006. Since private sector jobs ultimately pay for much of the public sector, this rebalancing is welcome."

Or, perhaps, the stimulus wasn't large enough. I've heard people say that Roosevelt's policies were not effective at bringing the US out of the Depression, but it was World War II that finally did it.

Wasn't World War II nothing but a HUGE stimulus package putting? It put millions back to work both in and out of uniform and spent billions on military hardware - hardware that was consumed as fast as we could crank it out?
"Or, perhaps, the stimulus wasn't large enough."

That seems to be the standard liberal and neoKeynesian answer to the failures of government, that or that you just need smarter people as central planners. Despite even Keynes' arguments against large long-term stimuli, Krugman is one who argues that. But it ignores the economic calculation problem Mises raised in the 30s to prove central planning cannot possibly solve it. One reason for this is the knowledge needed to solve economic problems is distributed and dynamic, as argument by Hayek in "The Use of Knowledge in Society". In short, the problem isn't how many resources you throw at the problem, but determining how to allocate resources.



The end of WWII lead to the Recession of 1945: "The decline in government spending at the end of World War II led to an enormous drop in gross domestic product, making this technically a recession. This was the result of demobilization and the shift from a wartime to peacetime economy."
Edited by Chris, Nov 8 2011, 04:04 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I think NGC has a good point. Hard to argue with it.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis