Obama's Troubles
Last week, before Mitt Romney put Paul Ryan on the ticket, I rejected the conventional wisdom espoused by the psephologists and argued that the Republican nominee would win in a landslide. When he put Ryan on the ticket, I suggested that he would immeasurably strengthen the Republicans in Congress and win a mandate.
For understandable reasons, you of good sense and little faith expressed doubts. To cheer yourself up, let me urge you to read Paul Mirengoff's dissection of the most recent Gallup poll. Here's a teaser:
A narrow plurality approved of the job Obama has done in foreign affairs (supposedly, somehow, his area of strength) and education. In the other three areas, Obama was under water and, indeed, under 40 percent.
The economy, jobs, and (probably to a lesser extent) the budget surely are the areas of greatest importance to voters in this election. Here is the breakdown for them:
Economy: 36 percent approve; 60 percent disapprove
Creating jobs: 37 percent approve; 58 percent disapprove
The budget: 30 percent approve; 64 percent disapprove
Can Obama be re-elected with these kinds of numbers? You wouldn’t think so. Here are the approval numbers regarding the economy for presidents who have been reelected in modern times:
George W. Bush’s rating in August 2004 (46%)
Bill Clinton’s in August 1996 (54%)
Ronald Reagan’s in July 1984 (50%)
Obama trails his closest competitor, George W. Bush, by 10 points.
Be of good cheer!
- Comment (37)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '10
Re: Obama's Troubles
I have been cautiously with you all along (my husband has been saying landslide for two years) and went over the moon with the Ryan choice. So, cheers all around from our household.
May '10
Re: Obama's Troubles
Here's what I put together the day Ryan was announced:
I included it earlier in Mollie's thread, but I'm not sure anyone saw it--mine was the last entry. Anyhow, I'm no competition for the great EJ!
Jul '12
Re: Obama's Troubles
Economy aside and polls notwithstanding, I don't think most people like him very much. There's a difference between liking it when he says things you want to hear and liking him and trusting him.
Edited on August 17, 2012 at 6:39pmJan '12
Re: Obama's Troubles
Please help me understand why there is no mention made, in this precise breakdown of comparative figures, of the impact of the Democrat's efforts to 'vote early and often'.
One of their aims has been to get their own into the position of 'Sec'y of State' in as many state houses as possible. We know they are going receive massive help from the unions to get people to the poles (illegal, as well as legal), and they will target the swing states first, where there is massive unemployment (welfare recipients, whose name and address they already have on record, and who they can deliver for Obama, en masse).
Add to that, the fact that nearly half the voting population doesn't pay taxes, and we are getting dangerously close to the situation in California, where it is no longer possible for a white Republican to get elected.
It's like watching two people playing chess, when one doesn't realize that their opponent is cheating!
Please tell me that somebody is factoring in 'voter fraud', when they are crunching the numbers...
Respectfully,
Jun '11
Re: Obama's Troubles
It depends on what you mean by a landslide. A solid victory is possible, but it's hard to see how it will be a landslide when it is likely that Obama will win states -- California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois -- with substantial numbers of electoral votes. Then again, I thought the Yankees would crush the Red Sox in the 2004 World Series.
Jun '11
Re: Obama's Troubles
Before I am deluged with corrections by baseball fans, I meant to say that I thought the Yankees would crush the Red Sox in the 2004 ALCS.
Re: Obama's Troubles
By a landslide, I mean a stunning victory in the overall popular vote. I would not be surprised, by the way, if New Jersey were to be in play. As for California, New York, and Illinois, they are all three bankrupt and desperately in need of a federal bailout -- which they will not get in any case.
May '10
Re: Obama's Troubles
Weeeeelllll . . . .
The Left was all excited in 2004 because all they could see were Bush's weaknesses. They forgot to consider if they had found an alternative that the undecideds would find non-loathesome.
Romney is no Kerry, but what he is exactly remains to be seen. The latest trends are encouraging, but there are still 80 days and 80 ways he could blow it.
Edited on August 17, 2012 at 7:03pmMar '11
Re: Obama's Troubles
For the first time I think there's a possibility that you may be right. When I saw the Drudge headline this morning about Obama demanding more tax returns from Romney, I thought "Wow, I guess the Mediscare stuff isn't working". He very much looks like a candidate doing his best to distract the voters from noticing how much his term in office has stunk.
Jun '11
Re: Obama's Troubles
I started picking up on a subtle anti-Obama drumbeat about a year ago. No one wanted to voice their antipathy to his policies for fear of being branded a racist, hater, etc (I continue to believe this is why he does as well in polls as he does). But the antipathy was there.
When Obama and his fellow travelers in Congress embraced the Occupy movement and embarked on a campaign of class warfare last fall, I began to think a Republican landslide was possible no matter who we nominated.
With the selection of Paul Ryan, I believe a landslide is now highly likely -- perhaps not an electoral landslide (California and NY will always work against this) but a popular vote/number of states won landslide. And I now believe it's possible that Obama's nasty, vicious brand of Leftism will consign Ds to the political wilderness for at least 16 years.
Okay, I may be going too far with that last prediction, but a fellow can dream, can't he?
Edited on August 17, 2012 at 7:08pmApr '11
Re: Obama's Troubles
Paul A. Rahe
By a landslide, I mean a stunning victory in the overall popular vote. I would not be surprised, by the way, if New Jersey were to be in play. As for California, New York, and Illinois, they are all three bankrupt and desperately in need of a federal bailout -- which they will not get in any case. · 9 minutes ago
I think they will get bailed out because they have a lot of political pull, and they really need the help. So the question though is how the bailout gets structured and what demands are placed on these states.
As to the optimism, I so want you to be right, but I was optimistic about the supreme court too...Optimists are usually not rewarded...
Apr '11
Re: Obama's Troubles
I just don't see how the numbers add up for Obama. His 3 main support groups: blacks, latinos and youth - will surely return to historical turnout levels from 08 highs. This will cost Obama 1-2 pts. We're also hearing that the youth vote is moving to Romney (still for Obama, but by 10 less pts).
On top of that it's logical to think that with a bad economy, troubling deficits and other Obama fiascos (ie, 'you didn't build that') some of his 08 voters will jump to Romney. After MA, VA and NJ in 09, mid-terms in 10 and WI in 12, this will not be a tirvial number. If this number is only 2 points, adding to the 1-2 pts from the other groups not showing up and Obama is already underwater from his 08 victory. If this number is 5-6 pts, we're looking at Dr. Rahe's landslide.
Look at WI where in '08 Obama won 14 pts. The latest poll has the race either tied or Romney up 2. That's a swing of 15-17 pts! WI can't be the only state where this is happening!
Jul '11
Re: Obama's Troubles
I was in a bar in New York City that night of the clincher, waiting for my flight to Europe the next day. Much hilarity did ensue, and virtual suicide attempts.
Edited on August 17, 2012 at 7:31pmOne of the sports memories you have that you were glad you could share it with your fellow human beings.
Mar '12
Re: Obama's Troubles
I can see R/R getting what Obama got four years ago - 53% and about 350+ EVs. But that, however, represents a best case scenario in my opinion. I think there are just enough states that are too rotten with Democrats to make anything more than this outcome unlikely. Is it fair to say that the political climate of today makes any kind of sweeping landslide (1980/84 proportions) impossible?
Re: Obama's Troubles
I do not think it fair to say that. Things are in flux. Look again at the level of disapproval of Obama's economic policies -- a matter of very great importance to most Americans.
Conventional wisdom holds that the recent past is the best guide to the future. Often, that is correct -- but not in a situation like the one we are in. Obama makes Carter look competent.
Dec '11
Re: Obama's Troubles
I won't believe that there will be a change of administrations until after it actually happens.
Jun '12
Re: Obama's Troubles
Paul A. Rahe
Obama makes Carter look competent. · 4 minutes ago
Compared to Obama, Carter was competent.
Mar '11
Re: Obama's Troubles
Obama has been a great President for education.
Every time I listen to him speak, I feel better about mine.
Jun '10
Re: Obama's Troubles
I'm on the landslide bandwagon as well. I'm more concerned about what Obama might do between November 7th and January 20th. Much mischief this way comes.
Dec '10
Re: Obama's Troubles
Hey, Gare, Massachusetts elected a Republican to fill Ted Kennedy's lifetime senate seat. Anything's possible! Except in California, New York, and Illinois. They're over the cliff and pulling the socialist cord on their reserve chute. Good luck with that!