The New York Times Asks: "Is Obama Toast?"
Nate Silver has an extremely interesting piece up at the Times that I commend to your attention. The Times has certainly come a long way from its days of publishing a catalogue of mash notes devoted to Barack Obama.
Silver's piece rather bracingly handicaps the President's chances of retaining his position. (To go along with the article, Silver has announced an interactive feature called Choose Obama's Reelection Adventure, which "allows you to handicap Mr. Obama’s re-election odds based on the assumptions of your choosing.")
Silver opens the "Is Obama Toast?" piece by taking Obama down for his mismanagement of the summer's debt-ceiling debates. As Silver puts it, that period of wrangling
crystallize[d] Obama’s vulnerabilities in a way that even the Democrats’ midterm disaster of 2010 did not. It’s probably because he handled the situation so poorly, simultaneously managing to annoy his base, frustrate swing voters, concede a major policy victory to Republicans and — through the fear imported into the market by the brinksmanship in Congress and the credit-rating downgrade that followed — further imperil the economic recovery.
Obama's stock on the betting market InTrade has been below 50% ever since the debt-ceiling debate was concluded in August, suggesting that he "has gone from a modest favorite to win re-election to, probably, a slight underdog."
Silver states that most political analysis suffers the flaw of thinking too small -- viewing Obama as suffering from, say, a Jewish problem, as evidenced when his party couldn't hold onto Anthony Weiner's vacated seat. Taking such a narrow view, Silver argues, is missing the point. Sure, Obama's got a Jewish problem; his approval rating among Jews has slid to 54%. But:
He also has a Hispanic problem and a problem among the white working class. He has a problem in Ohio and a problem in Florida and a problem in New Hampshire. He even has, to a mild extent, an African-American problem: Obama’s approval ratings among black voters are still high, but down to about 80 percent from 90 percent.
All of these, however, are symptoms of Obama’s larger problems, a set of three fundamental misgivings shared by much of the American electorate.
• First, many of us understand that Barack Obama inherited a terrible predicament. We have a degree of sympathy for the man. But we have concerns, which have been growing over time, about whether he’s up to the job.
• Second, most of us are gravely concerned about the economy. We’re not certain what should be done about it, but we’re frustrated.
• Third, enough of us are prepared to vote against Obama that he could easily lose. It doesn’t mean we will, but we might if the Republican represents a credible alternative and fits within the broad political mainstream.Each of these factors, in turn, can be quantified.
• The first factor, Americans’ performance reviews of Obama, can be measured through hisapproval ratings.
• The second factor, economic performance, can be measured through statistics like GDP;
• The third factor — essentially, the ideological positioning of the Republican candidate — is sometimes thought of as an “intangible.” But it can be measured too, and it matters a great deal.
Silver has many interesting things to say about the first two factors, but I call your particular attention to the third. He notes that current polls show Obama leading Romney by a single percentage point — but he's ahead of Cain by 8, Perry by 11 and Bachmann by 14. Still, it's too early to infer anything from these numbers. Reagan, Silver points out, was trailing Mondale by two points in late September 1983.
The last third of the article shows case studies Silver has run to forecast the results of an election under different economic circumstances. According to his model, either Romney or Perry would beat Obama if the economy continues to stagnate or to worsen, and either Romney or Perry would lose to Obama if the economy begins to recover before the election. Silver notes that a Perry (or a Cain) candidacy during a period of continued economic decline would be "a true test of the two political-science perspectives on the election: the referendum paradigm, which would favor Perry, against the median voter paradigm, which would favor Obama." (The referendum paradigm posits that the election is a judgment issued by the electorate on the performance of the incumbent, while in the median voter paradigm, the candidates are judged on ideological position and not on performance.)
The case studies seem to bear out Karl Rove's contention that it's strategically risky to nominate Perry over Romney. As Silver points out,
Rick Perry is no Ronald Reagan. While they have some biographical similarities (multiterm governors of major states; movie-star good looks; former Democrats) and some ideological similarities, Perry is much more likely to make the mistake of turning the race into a popularity contest rather than asking voters, as Reagan did, whether they were better off than they had been four years earlier. But Reagan won by 10 points, which means that even if Perry has disadvantages relative to Reagan (and Obama has advantages relative to Carter), they might not be enough to overcome the weight of a sagging economy.
So Perry would be a favorite under these conditions — but only a modest one. Republican strategists like Karl Rove are sensible in their desire not to nominate him; he might provide the clearest case in American history of a party blowing an election it by all rights should have won.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Aug '11
Re: The New York Times Asks: "Is Obama Toast?"
I can't put a lot of stock in Mr. Silver's prognostications, given that the "interactive feature" still favors Jon Huntsman far ahead than any of the others. In the NY Times simplistic model, the more moderate a candidate, the more likely they are to beat Obama.
The Moderate-to-Conservative measure seems to be the only real measure the model uses. Everything else is based off that. This little gizmo, however, seems to ignore the fact that Huntsman is barely a blip in the polls, and that Newt is third or fourth. (Here, Newt doesn't appear at all.)
Is Nate Silver suggesting Huntsman, who can't get out of single digits in any poll, can somehow beat Obama? Is this the New York Times telling us who to vote for again?
Edited on Nov 4, 2011 at 2:07pmMay '11
Re: The New York Times Asks: "Is Obama Toast?"
I agree with Drew. That whole ranking system based on degree of extremism is suspect. Huntsman is one of the more conservative candidates in the field but I won't vote for him because he is a weenie. I might vote for his daughters however.
Jan '11
Re: The New York Times Asks: "Is Obama Toast?"
Yes, Obama is toast. Then what?
Outside of maybe Ron Paul, I do not see any potential candidate who could shrink spending. I suspect some non-candidates know Washington DC but are not of Washington DC. Paul Ryan knows he cannot fix Washington but he might be able to manage an orderly retreat. Without the surge against Obama policies, there is not a strong enough will to cut spending, bureaucracies (manpower) or programs. A Cain landslide might be different - maybe, but I see January 2013 as just a political change rather than a policy change.
Unfortunately I think rebuilding will be easier than repairing. Obama will insure the wrecking ball is quick and complete. [ooh - mixed metaphor alert] It will require a large asteroid to kill all the dinosaurs in Washington.
Sorry I'm kinda off topic here. I'm a ½ trick pony.
Oct '11
Re: The New York Times Asks: "Is Obama Toast?"
I remain unconvinced that the MSM have even a clue about the proclivities of the American electorate. And I continue to fear the power of the projected $80 million dollar contribution by labor to the Obama 2012 campaign.
Re: The New York Times Asks: "Is Obama Toast?"
It is probably right to suppose that Rick Perry would not fare as well as Romney. But we ought to keep in mind that next to no one in 1979 thought that Reagan could beat Carter in 1980. Perry's weakness stems from clumsiness and ignorance. An articulate conservative would certainly do much better -- perhaps much better than Romney, whose record does not encourage confidence.
Jan '11
Re: The New York Times Asks: "Is Obama Toast?"
Obama is a man of his own design, with a rise to power long planned, steadfastly followed and expertly executed. I'm surprised that some think of him as foolish, immature, and incompetent. He's anything but that. He's exactly where he wants to be, and my guess is, right on schedule.
I suppose it's the absurdity of a president actually working to lesson the power and prestige of his own country that makes so many people incredulous, even when it's clearly obvious. There's plenty of evidence, both preceding and during his presidency, most of it unambiguous, and yet people remain incredulous.
Those crystallized vulnerabilities mentioned in the Times piece are purposeful, not accidental. Obama isn't a victim of circumstances, or the vagaries of political tides, or of external pressure groups. He is the master of his fate, and until enough voters allow themselves to see that, he will continue governing globally, not nationally, to the detriment of his own country.
Edited on Nov 4, 2011 at 7:54pmOct '10
Re: The New York Times Asks: "Is Obama Toast?"
I can't believe that people can make entire careers waving their hands over a bunch of polls, calling out a name or two, and calling their methods some sort of "science" (with the obligatory qualifier "inexact.")
"According to my analysis, Steve Jobs has only a 12% chance of bringing Apple back, but those chances rise by 5% with each major technological breakthrough that the company makes."
"According to my analysis, Beethoven will have huge hurdles to overcome when composing his 9th Symphony while deaf. I've created a metric that factors in such elements as depth of technical training, inherent musical talent, and something that I call the "inner ear / outer ear density ratio.""
"According to my analysis, Caesar is going to be hard put to take over Rome after crossing the Rubicon. I put his chances at 10%."
Do something constructive, Nate. Teach, build houses, volunteer for your candidate--whatever. Make your mark rather than sitting around handicapping the possibility that others will make theirs.
Aug '11
Re: The New York Times Asks: "Is Obama Toast?"
I do think that he is foolish, immature, and incompetent. I think his rise to power was planned and executed by other people. He's a little socialist-bot, assembled in a Hyde Park living room.
Dec '10
Re: The New York Times Asks: "Is Obama Toast?"
Judith, It is important right now that we understand the "double agent" mentality of seemingly right wing commenatary written in the MSM. There is always poison hidden in their trick or treet candy. They want us to prejudge our primary system. We should decide who can beat Obama according to their stereotypes of the electorate and their stereotypes of our candidates. We must not fall for this ploy. 'Let the best man win' should be our motto in this debate & primary party contest. We want substance not style. We have confidence that if we give the American people what we know to be the right candidate with the right plan they will see it too and elect him. Let the democrats try to triangulate and adapt their policy to shifting political winds. They will appear as the hypocrites that they are. When the time is right we will fall in behind our strongest candidate and deliver the dems "SHELLACKING II". Americans loved the first one, now they'll love the sequel even more.