Book of the Month

Articleman's picture

Obama Surges Nationally and in Ohio, Making 2012 Victory More Likely

by Articleman 11/11/2011 - 12:39 am   |

President Obama's re-election is becoming more likely.  While the President's approval rating recently hit an all-time low of 38%, which was lower than most Presidents at this time in their first term, two realities are converging:  (1) his approval has risen in key states, and also five points nationally since then; and (2) approval ratings are not presently as predictive of next November's vote as they used to be.

Obama's Boomlet in National Polls and Ohio Polls

The first point, the recent surge in national numbers, is striking.  The national trend has flipped Obama's way in the last six weeks.  From late September to late October, per Quinnipiac, Obama went from trailing Romney 46-42 nationally to leading 47-42.  From early October to early November, NBC News/WSJ showed him moving from 46-44 up on Romney to 49-43.  Gallup, my favorite source, showed Obama moving from down 50-42 to the Generic Republican in early October to up 48-45, an outcome that suggests Gallup would show him leading Romney by roughly six points.  Gallup is very fond of noting that Presidential re-election is well-predicted by Presidential standing in the twelfth and thirteenth quarters of a first term, and Obama is in the middle of his twelfth quarter.

The national trend is reinforced by positive state outcomes that have surprised me, given the fairly stagnant approval numbers with which the President has been working.  Obama has led Romney in the last three polls of Ohio, 45-41, per Quinnipiac, then 50-41 per PPP, then 45-42 per Quinnipiac.  A Rocky Mountain poll showed Obama ahead of Romney 45-40 in Arizona.  Rasmussen has Obama even with Romney in Virginia.  A loss of any of these states would likely be fatal to Romney, assuming he is the nominee.  (And if he's not, Obama is plastering the rest of the GOP field in Ohio, and even Florida.) 

The Double-Negative Voter Steps Up

The second point I mentioned up top -- that approval ratings don't predict eventual votes as well as they used to -- flows from understanding the double-negative voter.  Obama's recent surge highlights a point I have been making for a while, which is that voters who disapprove of both Obama and his Republican opposition (who I call double-negative voters) will likely decide the election.  In PPP's 50-41 domination in Ohio by Obama, Obama's approval rating is net-negative, at 41/49.  Juxtaposing those numbers should scare anyone who wants the President to lose.  Likewise, while putting Obama up three points in Ohio, Quinnipiac has his approval rating net-negative at 44/50. 

This is an angry electorate that disapproves partly of Obama but also of politics generally, and that feels failed not by one leader but by the system in general.  And Mitt Romney looks like a worse option to enough of them that Obama is in the catbird's seat in Ohio if his approval rating hangs not at 50% but rather, in the low 40s.  Think of that the next time a Scaife or Murdoch outlet pushes the meme that Obama is doomed because his approval is 42% or so and the electorate is angry about the economy.  

The rise of the double-negative voter was foretold in 2004, when George W. Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote and the Presidential election while his approval rating languished in the forties.  Voting is a binary choice among two potential Presidents, not the answer to a poll of approval of one (the referendum paradigm Nate Silver has spoken of lately).  Nate has also written that the folk wisdom that Presidents must be sitting at a 50% approval rating to win re-election is overstated, and he is right.  Obama is at 43%, and Congress is at 9%.  And yet someone is going to be elected.  With unemployment at 16% (including discouraged workers), an approval rating in the low 40s is deceptively strong.

Other Factors Tend To Predict a Further Obama Surge

There are several factors that cut in favor of Obama at this point.  One is that the trend in his numbers is upward (his Gallup approval hit 44 earlier this week, well up from 38).  Another is that, if polling is to be believed, he would lacerate any nonRomney Republican (such as Cain, Gingrich, or Unelectable Rick Perry), and Romney shows no sign of being able to put this race away.  Indeed, if Cain would just drop out of the race, Gingrich's odds of winning the nomination would approach 50%.  More on that soon.  It may also be the case that the foibles of Cain and the lack of a true antiRomney are taking their toll on the GOP and how it is perceived in this race.  Finally, Romney is a great salve for Obama in Ohio.  While he hasn't connected as well with blue-collar Ohio as he has with, say, Michigan or even Wisconsin, billionaire hedge-funder Romney ("let [the market] hit bottom") is an almost ideally bad candidate for recession-battered Buckeyes.  Ohio is down on John Kasich, as this week's decisive vote for unionism demonstrated, and as polls also show.  That will buoy Obama in 2012, much as the Arizona poll above reflects anger at the kind of extremism that got Russell Pearce, the Republican state Senate leader, recalled.  Independents turn from that kind of thing.  The Democratic left is more energized through Occupy, and class issues are coming to the fore, from the bottom up.  This is also happening while the President is mounting a huge organizational and fundraising effort that should give him a marginal advantage, and in a polling environment where polls statewide races in 2010 overstated Republican performance.

The one factor that can work against Obama is the release later this month of the supercommittee's recommendations.  If after that Obama is perceived as the Austerity-Champion-in-Chief, look at him to regress to his prior lows in popularity, and again drop below even odds for re-election.  Yet as the frame for 2012 is cast, and with Bill Daley's role reduced, I would look for Obama to articulate a clearer message that is a starker contrast to that of Romney (or Gingrich) and Boehner.  For all of these reasons, I presently view Obama's re-election as 70% likely, up 15% from a week ago, and likely to trend up further in the next sixty days.

much as the Arizona poll above reflects anger at the kind of extremism that got Russell Pearce, the Republican state Senate leader, recalled.  Independents turn from that kind of thing.

Watch out for the backlash.

The Arizona Republic had a good article on why Pearce lost.   Dirty politics.

Nationwide; 1070 propositions are becoming more extreme, than what Arizona had.  

I wouldn't be surprised to see Pearce re-nominated if Lewis tries to promote amnesty. 

Lets see if Ohio agrees with Obama, if he suggests giving amnesty.

The Republicans will pin Obama and the Democrats down on this issue.

If the perception is Amnesty is just around the corner, if Obama and the Democrats come to power.  

Amnesty is the new Missouri Compromise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise

The Southern Non- Union States will just love it.

Why do you think Boeing is going to the Southeast, why are the car manufacturers going to the South and have already started leaving the Industrial North? Cheap labor?  

The Unionized industrial north will not like it, that millions of workers will work cheaper undermining  Union Jobs.

Unions scoring a victory doesn't necessarily give Obama a win. 

Cheap labor, slavery will be allowed across the whole country.   

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason%E2%80%93Dixon_Line   

Corporations will have an overabundance of slaves cheap labor to choose from.

Corporations salivating because amnesty will be granted - 20 million more recently amnestied workers slaves, competing for available jobs.

How does that help the middle class Americans, make demands?    

We fought a civil war because slave labor could provide cheaper goods than the industrial North.

One civil war wasn't enough?

Uncle Tom will take on a new name in our generation

Uncle Morgan or Uncle Goldman;  someone who is subservient to the banker class, wall, street, JP Morgan,  Goldman Sacs.  someone looking to serve the new breed of American industrialists, looking for slave cheap labor.

by Resistance 11/11/2011 - 3:42 am
The GOP stances on immigration cost helped cost it Nevada's Senate seat last year. Romney's housekeeper issue makes him a lousy messenger there too
by Articleman 11/11/2011 - 10:35 am (re: Resistance)

The Arizona Republic had a good article on why Pearce lost.  WE ALREADY KNOW.  BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR LEWIS. Dirty politics.  YAWN.Nationwide; 1070 propositions are becoming more extreme, than what Arizona had. REMIND ME, WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF FANATACISM ?

I wouldn't be surprised to see Pearce re-nominated if Lewis tries to promote amnesty.  OR COMMUNISM OR NECROPHILIA. Lets see if Ohio agrees with Obama, if he suggests giving amnesty.SEE ABOVE

The Republicans will pin Obama and the Democrats down on this issue.PERHAPS THEY CAN USE PEARCE HE'S ON A ROLL.

If the perception is Amnesty is just around the corner, if Obama and the Democrats come? to power.OBAMA ALREADY IS  IN POWER.  

Amnesty is the new Missouri Compromise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise WITH RESPECT WE ACTUALLY KNEW THAT...

The Southern Non- Union States TAUTOLOGICAL will just love it.

Why do you think Boeing is going to the Southeast, why are the car manufacturers going to the South and have already started  AND THE SUN RISES IN THE EAST. leaving the Industrial North? Cheap labor?  .

The Unionized industrial north will not like it, that millions of workers will work cheaper undermining  Union Jobs.

Unions scoring a victory doesn't necessarily give Obama a win BEATS THE ALTERNATIVE.

by Flavius 11/11/2011 - 11:34 am (re: Resistance)

Pearce certainly is in need of a new job.  Well played, FLAVIUS.  :)

by Articleman 11/11/2011 - 7:36 pm (re: Flavius)

The Arizona Republic had a good article on why Pearce lost.  WE ALREADY KNOW.  BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR LEWIS.

I suppose you'll tell me  Gore won too?

.OBAMA ALREADY IS  IN POWER.  

Getting more doubtful, that he can retain it  OBAMA KNOWS HE CANT AFFORD ANYONE, TO RUN TO THE LEFT OF HIM

He knows he'd be replaced.

Pearce knew, the 1070 opponents would find another white, Mormon and then allow the anti Pearce Democrats the opportunity to vote him out of office.

Like Obama knows, if you ran another more left leaning democrat to primary Obama, Obama would lose.  He too would lose the winning votes.

BEATS THE ALTERNATIVE

ANOTHER UNION BUSTER? Is that what you call progress? Evidently you like Shiite sandwiches but you prefer a different bread?

As regards the Missouri Compromise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise WITH RESPECT WE ACTUALLY KNEW THAT...

WE?  This would be a good question by Leno. it wouldn't surprise me most Americans couldn't tell you what it was and after reading your taunts, I'm suspicious that even you; don't know the deeper issues of the COMPROMISE and how they have application today. 

REMIND ME, WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF FANATACISM ?

Go back to school, its spelled fanaticism.

As I said above, I doubt YOU even  know the deeper issues of the Missouri compromise.

Remind me of the definition of PANDERING, as in pandering to Latino voters; those in opposition to 1070 type propositions.

Pandering to a special interest group in order to replace the UNION Voters.

Union workers betrayed by so called friends of labor, who bring in more and more workers, knowing full well there's not enough jobs currently?

Betrayors of Union labor, knowing the only way to compete in the world labor market is..............(wait for it)  find cheap labor, and the UNIONS are not the answer to cheap labor.

Hmmmm How can the industrialists break the unions ?

This should be an easy one for even you. 

Answer: Find dupes and ridiculers to attack and give amnesty to more workers and flood the labor commodity market. 

Get more workers fighting amongst themselves for the crumbs.

Corporate slave masters: " Let those who want to hold out for better pay and benefits sit there, plenty of others slaves willing to work. if the new workers ever get uppity;  we'll allow more undocumented workers to enter the US and then we'll push for more amnesty. Screw the American working middle class, to stupid to realize the plan"   

by Resistance 11/12/2011 - 11:41 am (re: Flavius)

Thanks for the correction of fanaticism. Just returning the favor, too is spelled too , not to.

 

by Flavius 11/12/2011 - 5:29 pm (re: Resistance)

There seems to have been a sea change from Hitler metaphors to slavery metaphors.  I was going to suggest that to everyone as a change in my Hitler thread, but I didn't want to restart Civil War Mania at dagblog.  The one point in the above comment I thought was interesting was the Shiite sandwich, which I think is best served Sunni side up.

by Articleman 11/12/2011 - 6:25 pm (re: Flavius)

Sunni side up. I like that one A man.

"The world’s workers have always been and still are the world’s slaves. They have borne all the burdens of the race and built all the monuments along the track of civilization; they have produced all the world’s wealth and supported all the world’s governments. They have conquered all things but their own freedom. They are still the subject class in every nation on earth and the chief function of every government is to keep them at the mercy of their masters......

Economic slavery is the world’s greatest curse today. Poverty and misery, prostitution, insanity, and crime are its inevitable results.

It is vain to hope for material relief upon the prevailing system of capitalism. All the reforms that are proposed by the three capitalist parties, even if carried out in good faith, would still leave the working class in industrial slavery.

The working class will never be emancipated by the grace of the capitalists class, but only by overthrowing that class.

The capitalist class is organized economically and politically to keep the working class in subjection and perpetuate its power as a ruling class. They do not support a working class union nor a working-class party. They are not so foolish. They wisely look out for themselves.

The capitalist class despise a working-class party. Why should the working class give their support to a capitalist-class party?

Capitalist misrule under which workingmen suffer slavery and the most galling injustice exists only because it has workingmen’s support. Withdraw that support and capitalism is dead.

The capitalists can enslave and rob the workers only by the consent of the workers when they cast their ballots on election day.

Every vote cast for a capitalist party, whatever its name, is a vote for wage-slavery, for poverty and degradation.

Poverty, high prices, unemployment, child slavery, widespread misery and haggard want in a land bursting with abundance; prostitution and insanity, suicide and crime, these in solemn numbers tell the tragic story of capitalism’s saturnalia of blood and tears and shame as its end draws near.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5725/

Every age that has historical status is governed by aristocracies.
Aristocracy with the meaning - the best are ruling.
Peoples do never govern themselves. That lunacy was concocted by liberalism. Behind its "people's sovereignty" the slyest cheaters are hiding, who don't want to be recognized.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels

 

I suspect though, most of the stupidest among the working class, will still vote for the capitalist class. depriving the truly enlightened an escape from wage slavery. 

What say you?

by Resistance 11/12/2011 - 8:04 pm (re: Articleman)

The difference between A Mans less than obvious "to" vs "too" was an example of belittling me, because of my lack of proper usage. 

Wheres as; your  reply of "WE know"  as though to imply you didn't need to be re-educated about anything.  

If YOU"RE going to brag about your education; or that you don't need anymore because YOU already KNOW

Make sure you get the spelling correct; otherwise; one wonders whether you really? know  when you write "WE KNOW"

Really? Or are you just blowing smoke? wink

by Resistance 11/12/2011 - 7:36 pm (re: Flavius)

See you in the next thread. Stay well.

by Flavius 11/12/2011 - 7:49 pm (re: Resistance)

You too.

by Resistance 11/12/2011 - 8:06 pm (re: Flavius)

My first question is whether Obama is just successfully pandering before an election. For example, I got an email from the Bill McKibben/Tar Sands Action group:

Dear Friends,

Um, we won. You won.

Not completely. The president didn’t outright reject the pipeline permit. ... But a few minutes ago the president sent the pipeline back to the State Department for a thorough re-review, which most analysts are saying will effectively kill the project. The president explicitly noted climate change, along with the pipeline route, as one of the factors that a new review would need to assess. There’s no way, with an honest review, that a pipeline that helps speed the tapping of the world’s second-largest pool of carbon can pass environmental muster.

And he has made clear that the environmental assessment won’t be carried out by cronies of the pipeline company--that it will be an expert and independent assessment.

That sounds good, but I can't help wondering if Obama didn't just kick the can past Election Day.

My second question is whether a European crash will completely change the picture. I don't expect anyone to know the answer, but I worry about it.

by Donal 11/11/2011 - 9:43 am

If he had sent it back to the EPA, I'd think that McKibben might be right. Since it's the State Department*, I think your point is more apt.

*We need the Tar Sands Oil to keep us safe from those terr'ists!

by Verified Atheist 11/11/2011 - 9:54 am (re: Donal)

Yes, Obama's kicking the can. The pipeline will be approved, perhaps with a revised route, post-election. I'm no more a fan of the Tar Sands than I am of coal mining -- both are dirty, environment-wrecking processes. But the global-warming argument is bogus. Demand for fossil fuels, not availability, is what determines the amount of CO2 emitted worldwide; OPEC will fill any gap Alberta leaves. And if there's no pipeline south, one will be built to the B.C. coast, for exports to Asia. You want to put a dent in global warming? Pray for a eurozone collapse. Just realize there will be human consequences.

by acanuck 11/12/2011 - 1:43 am (re: Verified Atheist)

It isn't just the global warming aspect. The proposed pipeline crosses the Ogallala aquifer, which has a shallow water table, and is very susceptible to spills. It is the major supply of water between the Mississippi and Continental Divide.

The mining of the tar sands is very nasty, but will probably proceed so Canadians can make $10-20 per barrel more selling Syncrude at Brent prices rather than being stuck getting WTI prices.

by Donal 11/12/2011 - 4:39 am (re: acanuck)

Yeah, I knew about the aquifer; I was just dissing the CO2 argument. Given that the Tar Sands is unstoppable, I'd prefer to see the stuff piped east and refined/sold here. End our own dependence on imported oil.

by acanuck 11/12/2011 - 5:36 am (re: Donal)

I also really appreciated this set of comments.  While there is a need to manage oil extraction and distribution responsibly and in a way that minimizes environmental impacts, it's frustrating to listen to communities that consume lots of oil and have major carbon footprints wagging their finger as if this one unsafe project or that other one is the problem, instead of our damn addiction to the stuff in the first place.  No street energy around Copenhagen and the small but positive steps in the accord at the end to push ratification of it; lots of street energy over one bad pipeline idea.  Not saying it's wrong, as in literally counterproductive, but it's not the right focus.

by Articleman 11/12/2011 - 6:14 pm (re: acanuck)
The jobs bill seems better than that to me. Some credit Obama's surge to Romney being frontrunner, others to new feistiness. I think people are just tuning into Presidential politics and the independents are reacting to Republican overreach and are making the comparison among Obama amd the entire GOP field, and finding him preferable.
by Articleman 11/11/2011 - 10:30 am (re: Donal)

Coming from an incisive and no-false-hopes numbers guy like you, this is really positive news. Well written as always and frankly, this kind of piece can't be found anywhere else.

You've mentioned the role of independents a lot---so, are the actual "internals" looking that much better or is the support coming from more Democrats getting on board and perhaps some Republicans? I have noticed in looking at the historical numbers of Rasmussen on RCP that they seem to be outliers on the high end of disapproval, and showing wider spreads. What do you make of that, if anything, and are their internals on Independents also improving? Just curious.

I was born in Ohio but don't claim to understand the culture now. The religious fervor has increased. But it seems to me that the Republicans have managed to piss off the Reagan Democrats in a way similar to that of stiffing the Hispanics in the Mt. West and elsewhere.

by Oxy Mora 11/11/2011 - 10:49 am (re: Articleman)

Gallup shows independents swinging to even, where Obama was briefly -15 to -20 after the debt deal.  That makes Obama's +1 with the generic Republican very meaningful.  Romney will need to win independents (ala Obama 08 or GOP House 10), and he would not today.  That's where those guys should be very afraid.

Kudos to you for being the first up with this Democratic resurgence meme, you were spot on.

by Articleman 11/11/2011 - 11:29 am (re: Oxy Mora)

Thanks very much.

by Oxy Mora 11/11/2011 - 4:37 pm (re: Articleman)

I think Robert Reich has a good take on what we are likely to see in the upcoming year:

http://robertreich.org/post/12658896891?65064e38

My guess is that Obama will win easily, because the Republicans are a gang of idiots.  Neither party will have a candidate, however, who has the slightest disposition to fix what is actually broken in our society.  Republicans will be forced to nominate Romney, and we'll have an increasingly irrelevant debate between too timid and conservative 20th century guys who both work for the financial class.

by Dan Kervick 11/12/2011 - 10:46 am (re: Articleman)

I think your Obama prediction begins to make more sense to me.  I think some of the economic justice issues about which you write will be part of the 2012 campaign, and it will be interesting to see how, and that you may be right that Occupy pushes the narratives, at least at the margins.  I also think it's funny that Reich has a book title that makes it sound like oppression that he was in the Clinton cabinet.  He's been living off that for 15 years, poor guy.

by Articleman 11/12/2011 - 6:22 pm (re: Dan Kervick)

I don't think Obama is going to be able to run on economic justice issues, or the economy generally.  He has no credibility in that area.  The economy is in shambles; inequality has increased under his administration; unemployment is massive, particularly among the young; and the financial sector has seen higher profits under Obama than it did under Bush.

He'll run on foreign policy and gravitas.  I'm sure he already has some killer Bin Laden and Gaddafi commercials in the can.  And we're essentially out of Iraq.  He might attack Iran next year as well.

by Dan Kervick 11/12/2011 - 7:37 pm (re: Articleman)

What Saladin said to you.

by Articleman 11/12/2011 - 8:24 pm (re: Dan Kervick)

Where?

by Dan Kervick 11/12/2011 - 8:39 pm (re: Articleman)

Re your similar Iran comment.

by Articleman 11/12/2011 - 11:47 pm (re: Dan Kervick)

I thought he agreed with me.

by Dan Kervick 11/13/2011 - 9:56 am (re: Articleman)

"When the owners of the trusts finance a party to put themselves out of business; when they turn over their wealth to the people from whom they stole it and go to work for a living, it will be time .........One question is sufficient to determine the true status of all these parties. Do they want the workers to own the tools they work with, control their own jobs, and secure to themselves the wealth they produce? Certainly not. That is utterly ridiculous and impossible from their point of view.

The Republican, Democratic, and Progressive parties all stand for the private ownership by the capitalists of the productive machinery used by the workers, so that the capitalists can continue to filch the wealth produced by the workers.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5725/

 

It is not a mystery; the bankers were bailed out and the wage slaves are still burdened with the heavy yoke of debt, owed to the banker class.

Get to work wage slaves; make bricks without straw.  You still have to meet your quota for the status quo.  

by Resistance 11/12/2011 - 8:20 pm (re: Dan Kervick)

I agree with you, Articleman. I think people are just now tuning in and beginning to pay attention. The alternatives to Obama are just absurd.

by Kudra 11/14/2011 - 11:18 am (re: Articleman)

A European crash would somewhat reduce the world wide demand for oil ( even with their  greater reliance on nuclear) .Combined with the improving economics of solar that might sufficiently shrink the window for exploitation as to  ?  achievement of Tar Sands' target  return.

It's not intuitively obvious it's a winner. Except perhaps for a  promoter who get's it financed and  get's out. 
 .

by Flavius 11/11/2011 - 11:56 am (re: Donal)

I remember being pretty excited about environmental impacts statements back in the 70s. Early on, I even wrote one (with input from others who were specialists in their fields) for a project under study by the NPS.

Since the 70s I've drifted into other areas and not kept up, but my impression always has been that the authors of EIS work under a bias, or at least under significant pressure, in favor of the project, whatever it is. 

Please tell me I'm wrong.

by Red Planet 11/11/2011 - 7:15 pm (re: Donal)

If after that Obama is perceived as the Austerity-Champion-in-Chief, look at him to regress to his prior lows in popularity, and again drop below even odds for re-election.

Let's remember that the poll that found 3/4 of the people feel the playing field is tilted to the favor of the 1% also found half of Americans believed there should smaller government, less spending, fewer regulations, etc.  In other words there are many of those who believe in the 99% but do not believe bigger government is going to be answer. 

A question to be answered is that in places like Ohio, are those numbers larger than on a national level.  In other words, is being seen as something like the Austerity-Champion-in-Chief make him more electable in places like Ohio.

And one other facet is that for many voters, how they view state government and the big-ole-federal government is completely different (in part because they don't understand that the services offered by the state are a function of funding from the federal government).

by Another Trope 11/11/2011 - 11:33 am

The belief in smaller government  is a case of   general rejection combined with specific approval. as those Austerity-ites switch seamlessly into ardent defenders of their pet program(s).

"Keep the Government's hands of my Medicare".

 

 

by Flavius 11/11/2011 - 12:08 pm (re: Another Trope)

Definitely a push me-pull me situation for many voters.  I think that things will finally get to a point before the election where people will have to finally confront their political contradictions - and in my opinion, when this happens, the liberals are more the winners in contrast to the conservatives.  And this benefits Obama, as the quasi-conservatives accept that they do want the federal government in their lives.

by Another Trope 11/11/2011 - 12:14 pm (re: Flavius)

I think that things will finally get to a point before the election where people will have to finally confront their political contradictions...

I think you underestimate the electorate's ability to sustain cognitive dissonance.

by Verified Atheist 11/11/2011 - 12:27 pm (re: Another Trope)

Maybe.  Time will tell.  I don't think a lot of these people will come to full enlightenment and the scales will fall from their eyes (and there are those who think I have my own cognitive dissonance, and I doubt I will fully give mine up).  I do think that at some gut level they will acknowledge, even if it doesn't come fully into their consciousness, that in order to go forward Obama is the better choice than whatever the Republicans offer.  They may not be able to articulate why at the last moment they pulled the lever for Obama over Mitt or whoever, they may even feel guilty about it.

by Another Trope 11/11/2011 - 12:48 pm (re: Verified Atheist)

I think Obama will probably win, but that it'll most likely be partly because of who he runs against. There's no one in the current field (and the field is unlikely to improve) that has a large amount of Republican support, let alone moderate support.

I think the horrific field will also help voters maintain their cognitive dissonance. (Well, of course, smaller government is ideal, but this bozo wants to do [insert insane action here]!)

by Verified Atheist 11/11/2011 - 12:54 pm (re: Another Trope)

Part of the problem is that with this field of bozos, when it comes to inserting insane action here, they can't be relied on to remember what exactly that insane action was.

by Another Trope 11/11/2011 - 1:01 pm (re: Verified Atheist)

"Bigger government" is a trope too far, AT. No one is ever asked to define it.

Is it big because it intrudes into our private lives? Or because it employs too many people? Or because it taxes the rich? Or because it is Democratic rather than Republican?

Time to not talk about bigger vs. smaller government. Time to talk about government that works for the 99% instead of just for the 1%.

by Red Planet 11/11/2011 - 7:20 pm (re: Another Trope)

Definitely time to talk about it.  But I doubt the public discourse on the topic is going to deconstruct the notions of big/small government that have evolved over decades in time for the next election. 

by Another Trope 11/11/2011 - 8:46 pm (re: Red Planet)
I think the 1% thing adroitly shifts the discussion from government bad to a different discussion. Framing matters plenty. So there is a competing narrative with force that is still expanding. I think that limits the force of the other narrative, or at least blunts it.
by Articleman 11/11/2011 - 9:07 pm (re: Another Trope)

I agree that framing matters plenty.  As a post-structuralist can I say there is anything but the frame?  But I suppose part of my point is that we might want to avoid the idea of it being a duality - i.e. it is either this narrative or that narrative.  There number of narratives are limitless, although one can begin to group them.  In presidential politics, one has a few mega narratives - foreign policy (lately these have the key narratives of war, terrorism and trade), economy (lately these have jobs, GDP, trade - overlapping with foreign policy, wall street and now the 1%/99% issue), and social issues (from abortion to education to social safety net which obviously laps over into the economy).  Wrapped around all these narratives, which take on individual manifestations, is the narrative of the role in the government in all of these issues. 

I think a good example of what I am talking about is the person who doesn't believe the military, which is the federal government, should have any budget cuts.  This is driven in part because in many areas, the military is the big employer in town.  So in a sense these particular folks have no problem using the federal government creating jobs, as long as those jobs are tied to the military.  At the same time the person can be against the government supporting the safety net, even though the military families or the families in the defense industry are often those who require assistance from the government.  One can start talking about how things are tilted to the 1%, but connecting that narrative to single mother who is seeking food stamps is a stretch for these folks.  The issues are not the same and their response operate from different narratives.

by Another Trope 11/11/2011 - 9:26 pm (re: Articleman)

I think Occupy is pushing framing, and that is so far its primary impact.  And beyond camping in the park near my work as it does, the meme of the 1% and the 99% is I think more important than Occupy itself, though that framing is part of and propagated in part through Occupy.  

The 1% thing is a primordial howl of what the left is and means to be and suppresses or find suppressed within itself by its leaders or its or their desire to win elections.  I think it can speak well to folks on food stamps.  But that's often the task or problem of the left; convincing many of those to be benefited by its proposals that they are in fact interested in these ideas.  Many of those folks aren't interested, many are, and many need to be sold.

by Articleman 11/12/2011 - 6:20 pm (re: Another Trope)

Time to talk about getting a government that works for the 99%

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5725/

http://dagblog.com/politics/obama-surges-nationally-and-ohio-making-2012-victory-more-likely-12188#comment-140674

by Resistance 11/12/2011 - 8:10 pm (re: Red Planet)

I notice you didn't mention the Time for Change model as explained at Larry Sabato's blog, Crystal Ball, yesterday.  They have an interesting analysis of their own, as well as a complete analysis of Nate Silver's latest modeling on next years election. I found it enlightening. Why Barack Obama has a good chance of winning a second term.

by tmccarthy0 11/11/2011 - 3:19 pm

Sabato's and Silver's pieces have their problems, IMO.  Sabato is kind of doing that thing sports magazines do when they predict last year's news.  Not because he asserts Obama has an advantage, but because he assumes that first-term Presidents have advantages because they used to.  And they do, until they don't.  It's circular.  Who is to say in the fiercely anti-incumbent era in history in which we live, when we've just seen three straight wave elections (D, D, and R) that we won't see a fourth?  His model glosses over such particularities.  I think the best answer is that as in wave theory when you have two waves, they can slosh at each other in opposite directions, and there is a Tea wave and an antiextremist backlash wave that may roughly cancel and make 2012 resemble historically normal behavior toward incumbencies (though not really).  My double-negative segment of the electorate is where that dynamic (the two waves sloshing at each other) is occurring, and that dynamic is not really like 1984 or 1972 or 1964 or 1956.  The top line result may end up being the same, but claiming these other results that were mostly classic referenda on the incumbent where more than half of folks made an essentially affirmative decision arguably compel a 2012 reelection result seems to be to call guesswork "statistics."  (And Sabato complains of Nate that economic growth data aren't predictive, which to me is ironic, when he finds Eisenhower's America predictive.) 

Additionally, I predicted the Senate one seat better than Sabato, FWIW.  :)  We both blew CO and NV, but I had AK.

Silver's piece models Perry.  Perry is NOT going to be the nominee.  Why is anyone thinking it is even possible?  Gingrich would be a reasonable second most probable nominee to model.  So Nate wasted a lot of space on that.  I do think Sabato is right that Nate overplays the whole if-the-economy-doesn't-grow-Obama-is-doomed thing.  Nate had the misfortune to run his analysis at the depth of Obama's popularity trough (or put another way, he ran it essentially before Obama's standing in his own 12th and 13th quarters was in).  I think if he ran it a month later, he's not so bullish on Romney. 

But the great thing in Nate's piece is toward the end, and it's seriously great.  He introduces the concepts of the referendum theory of Presidential elections (things are good, keep them that way) and the median voter theory (is Obama or is Romney to my right/left).  The truth of where this election is going is more the latter, obviously, since things suck.  But Nate may have undervalued the degree to which the Republican brand is baked into Romney, and overstated Romney's chance of keeping a majority of independents on his side (Nate used too much 11th quarter data, I think). 

So there are two steps in the decision tree of this electorate.  (1) Are things good so they should be kept that way?  (The referendum question.)  No, not really.  And (2) even for folks who think they suck, can any R be trusted to fix it in the current frame?  And the double-negative voters say no, and no again.  And they're driving the train.

by Articleman 11/11/2011 - 7:28 pm (re: tmccarthy0)

It is going to be one interesting election no doubt about it. I'd never heard of the Time-for-Change forecasting model, and thought Abramowitz's analysis was interesting.

 

by tmccarthy0 11/11/2011 - 9:53 pm (re: Articleman)

I'm getting confused between the double negative concept and the median voter theory. How do you compare the two and is one sort of the flip side of the other? Thanks

by Oxy Mora 11/11/2011 - 10:55 pm (re: Articleman)
Hey Oxy. The median voter theory hypothecates a left-right continuum and people vote for whoever they are closer to. It is basically compatible with the idea that a voter dislikes both choices (the double-negative suggestion). The referendum theory posits that the question is whether the Pres deserves reelection. Approvals below 50 presumably mean the Pres is toast, to its way of thinking. The double-negative idea is that the Pres can be at 43 and on path to reelect with enough double-negative voters who find themselves aligned with President 43 approval rating rather than the challenger. This is incompatible w the referendum theory.
by Articleman 11/12/2011 - 12:08 am (re: Oxy Mora)

Your "double negative" is nothing more than "voting for the lessor of two evils" meme that we've had with us for hundreds of years.

A better "double negative" would be the fact that Obama's negative numbers combine people who want him to be MORE liberal with people who just plain don't like him.

People who want him to be MORE liberal are hardly going to vote for whatever idiot these Repub morons are going to throw out there.

Are they going to stay home and not vote for Obama, while a super RWer might get elected? I doubt it.

by Zentrails (not verified) 11/14/2011 - 3:16 pm (re: Articleman)

I meant a better "double negative" MIGHT be..

Yours is good, too.

by Zentrails (not verified) 11/14/2011 - 4:22 pm (re: Zentrails)

Your second paragraph is also exactly right.  It's the same reason HCR polls net-negative, say, 38/53 or so, but then when you ask people who they trust more on health care, Obama or the GOP, you get something like 45/45, because some of those are negative on the liberal side, and some on the conservative side.  Same thing, number-wise.

by Articleman 11/14/2011 - 4:27 pm (re: Zentrails)

Of course your first sentence is entirely right.  Despite that time-honored idea being out there, we never used to re-elect Presidents based on an approval rating in the forties.  And the approval rating is driving a lot of false gloom and doom out there, until you look at the head-to-heads, where Obama overperforms his approval rating, which is a bit weird.  Didn't used to work that way.  Bush 2004 was the first inkling.

by Articleman 11/14/2011 - 4:24 pm (re: Zentrails)

On re-reading it, it comes off as a little too snarky. Sorry

by Zentrails (not verified) 11/14/2011 - 4:31 pm (re: Articleman)

by Richard Day 11/11/2011 - 7:55 pm

In 2012 I'll take Romney plus the points.  Put me down for 1 large.

by kyle flynn 11/12/2011 - 10:57 am
Sounds like a plan, but wait til we set the line, bro. And Gingrich futures are up in heavy trading Friday.
by Articleman 11/12/2011 - 12:14 pm (re: kyle flynn)

Today's Rasmussen shows Obama blipping up to net-even approval at 48/48, obviously consistent with this post.

by Articleman 11/13/2011 - 5:37 pm

With Rasmusson you can usually add 3% to the DEMs numbers and subtract same from the Repub's number. I believe the 2010 elections actually went beyond that.

 

I'm also suspicious of a second cell phone bias:

People who, like me, never answer their cell when they don't recognize the caller ID.

I suspect older people who are more likely Repubs find it harder to NOT answer the phone.

People old enough to remember the time before answering machines know how hard it used to be to NOT pick up. (could be an emergency, last minute horse race pick, etc.)

by Zentrails (not verified) 11/14/2011 - 4:29 pm (re: Articleman)

The 2010 races (Reid, Bennet, Murray, Manchin, IL-Gov) tended to have a red lean across the board, which seemed to be a bit of underpolling cell, underpolling Latinos, and also overweighting GOP-preferrers a bit based upon high stated enthusiasm.  Then again, there is this last minute horse race picking theory...  :)

by Articleman 11/14/2011 - 4:51 pm (re: Zentrails)

Good point. I pay by the minute, so I never answer my cell unless the caller is on my list.

by Donal 11/14/2011 - 5:01 pm (re: Zentrails)
Wolfrum makes an excellent and highly topical point here: http://www.williamkwolfrum.com/2011/10/31/incredibly-inept-stupid-gop-fi...
by Articleman 11/14/2011 - 11:08 am

Yep, good link and that's how I found your blog as well.

Careful of that infinite link loop, now.  LOL

by Zentrails (not verified) 11/14/2011 - 4:36 pm (re: Articleman)

I think Obama will find it a stroll in the park in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and those other states where the GOP went hog-wild and instituted Orwell's 1984 in a epic proportion on an unsuspecting public. Other states with large and legal populations of Hispanics, who are heavily union and blue collar, will help turn the tide in favor of Obama over whomever the GOPer's prop up as their candidate. The GOPer's will only fair well in rural states with minimum populations, strictly religious ... mainly christian ... and southern ignorance <I grew up there so I have the right to say so>.

Where Obama will have trouble is getting people, like myself, to vote ... I'd prefer to sit this one out. He's going to have to put one hell of a big rabbit out of his rear to get my attention between now on November 2012.

by Beetlejuice 11/14/2011 - 6:01 pm

Latest Comments

more