Liberal Disenchantment with Obama is Real RJ

[Ball State Deac]

^ Again, this is an absurd comparison, whether you cite stats from elections that predate WWII or not. People are fairly disenchanted with this first term (hello, thread title), and 9% unemployment ain't helping things. Remember that if we didn't pass Porkulus, we would get to 8% unemployment. Our country would kill for this admin's "or else" scenario.

It's not working, see 2010.

But by all means, cite FDR's ability to get re-elected during the Second World War. That's going to put him over the top.

Wasn't this the comparison your were asking be made? Liberals are still going to vote for him because they're a politically active group and generally hate conservatives more than they like democrats. Besides, they get to say they "held their nose" while they voted for so-and-so, allowing them to continue to feel superior. Trust me on this, I'm one of them.

 

[PhDeac]

jhmd makes an assumption that something is going to happen.

Arlington shows that it has never happened.

jhmd says that we have to ignore history and accept his premise because this time is different.

Please will somebody here bet me money on this election?

 

[ncsportsnut1]

jhmd makes an assumption that something is going to happen.

Arlington shows that it has never happened.

jhmd says that we have to ignore history and accept his premise because this time is different.

Please will somebody here bet me money on this election?

PhDeac, I will bet you on the election but I do need to see who we Republicans nominate first. Let me get past IA, NH, and SC primaries and yeh I'll bet you no problem. This election is about the economy and not so much the candidates. Lyndon Johnson knew he would not be re-elected and bailed, Jimmy Carter didn't make two terms, only Clinton on the Dem side got re-elected since before 1950. Clinton was much more moderate than Obama and that along with the economy will be Obama's undoing.

 

[Ball State Deac]

Not sure what your point is, other than democrats are mediocre politicians (they are, though LBJ was elected as an incumbent). Obama is not a mediocre politician.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

2&2, you think Obama has been more polarizing than W and Clinton before him? If so, does that have to do with Obama at all or just the political/media climate?

Two part answer:

1. I think Obama has been more polarizing to more people than Clinton. Clinton polarized a relatively small group (because of his moral turpitude) perhaps more drastically than Obama has, but I think Obama has polarized larger segments of the population. The vast majority didn't give a crap about Clinton's BJ or his investments because they were only tangentially related to his job - Obama's shortcomings have been job-related. I think at this point in their respective presidencies, Obama has been more polarizing than W. 2.5 years in, W had some criticism for the war, but I think the vast majority of the country was still behind him at least in terms of the overall theory that we needed to try to kick somebody's ass. Obviously hindsight highlighted his various incidents of buffoonery within that theory, but at the time I don't think he was very polarizing to the country as a whole.

2. I think Obama's polarization starts with himself, but is amplified by the media climate. I think he came in with more pressure on him than any other president because of his lack of experience and his grandiose campaign promises. Instead of starting slow, he jumped in with some major actions right out of the gate. Hardcore Dems give him credit for sticking to his guns, but I think the majority (including the middle that Arlington keeps referencing) simply looks at the fact his guns misfired. People were just waiting for him to fail, and he did not disappoint with his first few major actions. Combined with the media climate, those initial failures (and they are viewed by the masses as failures, no matter how much the Dems try to sugarcoat them now) were nitpicked to death. Even something as simple as the Supreme Court snub during the SOTU got 100 times as much run as it otherwise would have under "old-fashioned" media. Had he started by taking out Osama, I think he would have gotten a much longer leash. But it didn't work out that way, so I think he started in an extremely deep hole.

 

[RJKarl]

Only RW nuts think anything about the SC "snib" and by the way everything he said that night was true. It was one of the worst decisions and SC has made a century. It completely put all federal elections up for the higest bidder and has made election finace totally sectretive.

It's a disgraceful decision and is in direct opposition to how Alito and Roberts said they would act if confirmed to the bench.

 

[jhmd2000]

Wasn't this the comparison your were asking be made? Liberals are still going to vote for him because they're a politically active group and generally hate conservatives more than they like democrats. Besides, they get to say they "held their nose" while they voted for so-and-so, allowing them to continue to feel superior. Trust me on this, I'm one of them.

I don't doubt you are correct, but that doesn't mean that the turnout of the kneepad crowd will be as big this time. Their irrational exuberance for the Unicorn Presidency has been brought down to the Earth (Gitmo is still open and the factories are still closed); which was the point I was trying to make. I wasn't genuinely asking for a historical analysis of the tea leaves to predict this election. Perhaps I incorrectly assumed that posterdom agreed that voters vote with their pocketbooks in 2012, not how their grandparents voted with their pocketbooks in the 1930's.

Sorry for assuming.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Only RW nuts think anything about the SC "snib" and by the way everything he said that night was true. It was one of the worst decisions and SC has made a century. It completely put all federal elections up for the higest bidder and has made election finace totally sectretive.

It's a disgraceful decision and is in direct opposition to how Alito and Roberts said they would act if confirmed to the bench.

I don't necessarily disagree with you; my point was that the snub itself got a lot more exposure than it would have 10 or 20 years ago, simply because of the current media climate.

 

[TheShot]

not to throw in a monkey wrench, but unemployment is up 25% during Obama's pres. that's not nothing. it would certainly be helpful to him if the number dropped in the next year.

 

[RJKarl]

The fair unemployment number would to use either August 2009 when the first people kept their jobs due to the stimulus or October 2009 when his first fiscal year started.

It's irrational to blame Obama for anything that happened in the spring or early summer of 2009 as none of his policies had been enacted.

 

[jhmd2000]

not to throw in a monkey wrench, but unemployment is up 25% during Obama's pres. that's not nothing. it would certainly be helpful to him if the number dropped in the next year.

Bingo.

 

[Ball State Deac]

I don't doubt you are correct, but that doesn't mean that the turnout of the kneepad crowd will be as big this time. Their irrational exuberance for the Unicorn Presidency has been brought down to the Earth (Gitmo is still open and the factories are still closed); which was the point I was trying to make. I wasn't genuinely asking for a historical analysis of the tea leaves to predict this election. Perhaps I incorrectly assumed that posterdom agreed that voters vote with their pocketbooks in 2012, not how their grandparents voted with their pocketbooks in the 1930's.

Sorry for assuming.

People very well may vote for a Republican, but liberals won't, and they won't stay home, either. As for who non-liberals will vote for, I keep coming back to the same issue: who the in the hell are the Republicans going to run? I would think that at the moment, Romney is your best bet.

 

[KanhojiAngre]

Incumbents with sustained unemployment rates between 7% and 24% are undefeated in the last 100 years. The only way unemployment rates factor is if the rate dramatically increases during the incumbent's presidency.

Please stop quoting this bogus Nate Silver number. The last president that fell into this category I believe was FDR. Not exactly representative.

 

[jhmd2000]

Please stop quoting this bogus Nate Silver number. The last president that fell into this category I believe was FDR. Not exactly representative.

I can hardly tell Obama and FDR (or for that matter, Lincoln) apart.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

I don't doubt you are correct, but that doesn't mean that the turnout of the kneepad crowd will be as big this time. Their irrational exuberance for the Unicorn Presidency has been brought down to the Earth (Gitmo is still open and the factories are still closed); which was the point I was trying to make. I wasn't genuinely asking for a historical analysis of the tea leaves to predict this election. Perhaps I incorrectly assumed that posterdom agreed that voters vote with their pocketbooks in 2012, not how their grandparents voted with their pocketbooks in the 1930's.

Sorry for assuming.

You've really become almost impossible to talk to. You asked a question, and I supplied the exact answer. You didn't like that fact, so you slipped into massive condescension that had nothing to do with the issue. And with this post, you're just plain trolling.

When you're ready to have civil political debates again let me know, but until then I'm done being antagonized without any intellectual upside.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

Please stop quoting this bogus Nate Silver number. The last president that fell into this category I believe was FDR. Not exactly representative.

Show me what's bogus about it please.

The point is simple- high unemployment rates historically do not decide elections because often an incumbent comes into the office exactly because the rate went high as result of (or during) the last president's term. That's the environment Obama faces for 2012.

You don't beat a sitting president without a very attractive candidate or much more money. Ask John Kerry.

 

[KanhojiAngre]

Show me what's bogus about it please.

I'm wondering who it applies to other than FDR, but I went back and looked at who unemployment rates over time in another thread and the only times the country was over 8% post Depression were not in election years. I believe it was 75, 81-83, and 09-present. The parameters of the stat are obviously chosen so as to create a data set where one just as easily would not exist.

It is a completely useless number.

According to the charts on tradingeconomics.com

Nov 1948 -- 3.8%
Nov 1952 -- 2.8%
Nov 1956 -- 4.4%
Nov 1960 -- 6.2%
Nov 1964 -- 4.8%
Nov 1968 -- 3.4%
Nov 1972 -- 5.3%
Nov 1976 -- 7.8% -- incumbent did not win
Nov 1980 -- 7.5% -- incumbent did not win
Nov 1984 -- 7.2% -- incumbent won
Nov 1988 -- 5.3%
Nov 1992 -- 7.4% -- incumbent did not win
Nov 1996 -- 5.4%
Nov 2000 -- 3.9%
Nov 2004 -- 5.4%
Nov 2008 -- 6.9%

Anyone got anything different?

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

Link to the raw data? But you're missing the point of the point, so to speak- high unemployment numbers, in and of themselves, do not mean an incumbent will lose. The novelty of the fact is that the lack of causation is so bald-faced- not one incumbent having hit unemployment over 7% has lost, so long as unemployment was not surging under their administration. It's a point to negate a false perception, not one to imply a positive correlation. No one is implying that Obama will win because unemployment is high. But when your admin takes over due to a fiscal disaster during the previous one, you can get around sustained high unemployment.

 

[RJKarl]

It's not about raw numbers. It's more about what were the conditions before that person took office.

 

[TheShot]

Link to the raw data? But you're missing the point of the point, so to speak- high unemployment numbers, in and of themselves, do not mean an incumbent will lose. The novelty of the fact is that the lack of causation is so bald-faced- not one incumbent having hit unemployment over 7% has lost, so long as unemployment was not surging under their administration. It's a point to negate a false perception, not one to imply a positive correlation. No one is implying that Obama will win because unemployment is high. But when your admin takes over due to a fiscal disaster during the previous one, you can get around sustained high unemployment.

you have to really parse and re-parse the data to try and make a definitive statement either way on this, i think. The unemployment rate actually declined under Jimmy Carter (from 7.8 to 7.5) but he obviously lost to Reagan. so i'm not sure where that fits.

either way, you can tie yourself in knots on this stat and i'm not sure any of it means anything except that a bad economy makes it harder for an incumbent, and so 9% unemployment and a 25% increase during his term is probably not helpful for the current incumbent. obviously, there is no absolute causation here, but in an election about the economy, those are not helpful facts.