The Odds Against Obama. Update

For several days now I have been surrounded by people who know as much or a lot more than I do about biopolitics, genetics, evolutionary psychology, and philosophical theories of ethics. For some reason, the Association of Politics and the Life Sciences attracts a lot of Libertarians, so Ron Paul can rest assured that he will carry the conference in the primaries.

While I was hobnobbing with these folks, two Professor Schaffs posted on SDP. One of them thinks Obama will lose and the other thinks he will win. The latter is the real Schaff, as he acknowledged. I know the good professor to be inclined to pessimism, but I also know better than to commit the genetic fallacy.

Professor Schaff's case for an Obama victory is solid but hardly compelling. Yes, Obama will run an entirely negative campaign against whoever the nominee turns out to be and yes, that worked for Bush in '04. However, campaign strategies rarely have more than a marginal influence on election outcomes. A good campaign can energize your base and depress turnout on the other side. It may have some effect on the shift among independents. It is very hard to move voters from one column into the other.

Because the 2004 election was very close, Karl Rove's magic may have made the difference; however, that was only because the electoral tectonics already favored Bush. The latter fact made it very hard for Democrats to mount a coherent alternative to Bush. Kerry could denounce Bush on foreign policy but he was never able to say exactly what he would do nor was he able to really confront the issues on which the election turned.

Looking at the current electoral tectonics, it is hard to see them as other than disastrous for Obama. Obviously the economy is the greatest obstacle to the President's reelection. No one expects it to improve much in time to influence next year's event. One of the best polling indicators of Presidential election outcomes is the question whether the country is headed in the right direction or is on the wrong track. Pollster.com has the wrong track leading the right direction by 73-18%!

Turning to job approval, Obama is running well below Bush's numbers for this point in the cycle, according to Gallup. He is also running a little below Clinton's numbers, though this is the point at which Clinton's numbers climbed into the positive. Will Obama enjoy a similar rebound? I can't see the future, but I can see that Clinton enjoyed an economic recovery and Obama has not.

What really matters, however, is the disposition of the three great blocs of voters: Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Seventy-four percent of Republicans strongly disapprove of the President, which dwarfs the 43% of Democrats who strongly approve. Obama will win almost all of the Democrats who bother to vote, with the likely exception of the "Reagan Democrats" who will cross over. Can his campaign effectively suppress the strong Republican disapproval?

Self-described independents have grown as a percentage of the total electorate to about 46%. A strong majority of independents disapproves of the President's job performance. Forty-three percent of independents strongly disapprove of the way the President is handling his job.

The loss of support for Democrats among independent voters is not something that just now happened. It has been going on since late 2009 and it underlies Republican victories from the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey and Scott Brown's election to the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, to the 2010 election. It is difficult to see what the Obama campaign can do to reverse it. As Jay Cost puts it:

What would happen to the president if he were to win only 35 percent of independent voters next year? He would lose. And it would not be close.

Obama will run with a terrible economic record. There is no public confidence in his leadership. He has given up trying to offer real economic policy proposals, assuming he ever tried. His signature piece of legislation remains unpopular and it is crumbling as we speak. Unless there is a dramatic shift in these numbers, Obama will lose and it won't be close.

None of this is to say that the Republicans are not capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They surely are. They may nominate Rick Perry. However, I expect Mitt Romney to be the nominee. Republicans will never love him, but they will love to beat Obama. He is better positioned than anyone else in the field to appeal to independent voters.

I make no predictions. I do think the board looks very good right now for the right Republican.

Update.  Wolf Blitzer has this bit of information from a recent CNN poll:

Among all voters, 59% think that President Obama’s policies will fail compared to only 36% who say they will succeed.

In 2010, 47% thought the president’s policies would fail. And back in 2009, only 32% thought the president’s policies would fail.

You see the trend, and it’s not good for the president’s re-election prospects.

Comments

[Stan Gibilisco]

That graph says a lot of things! First, the greatest (and most acute) level of disillusionment took place around September 2008, when the "great recession" struck, heralded by the disaster with the home mortgage "industry." For some reason, I saw that storm coming a year earlier, paid off my mortage, and gazed with amusement on the looks that I got when I told the people at the title company that I was "getting corporate gangsters out of my life."

Corporate gangsters got us into this mess, and Barack Obama and his administration just can't seem to get us out. It seems as if we replaced one crony capitalist with another, maybe even worse.

The gradual change in the graph since the end of 2008 suggests three things to me:

(1) The Obama administration's "medicine" isn't working, for whatever reason. (Disease too severe? Prescription wrong?)

(2) People are getting over the initial infatuation with Barack Obama himself

(3) People are in general getting more cynical and more bitter by the day

The last of these trends troubles me especially, for if it continues, I reckon it's a coin toss as to whether or not you and I will live long enough to see a civil war (guns and all) right here in the USA.

As far as I'm concerned, all the Republican candidates except Mitt Romney are either politically impotent or loony in some way or another. Romney has the Mormonism problem and the Romneycare problem to overcome, but I think he can carry it off. Herman Cain will, in my opinion, gradually decline as people come to realize that his 999 tax plan constitutes an assault on the poor.

[idiom]

"However, I expect Mitt Romney to be the nominee. Republicans will never love him, but they will love to beat Obama. He is better positioned than anyone else in the field to appeal to independent voters."

From a PPP Poll

Independents in Florida:

Paul 52%
Obama 37%

[George Mason]

Stan; Only the government can create a mess this big. The Financial/Mortgage mess was created by the Fed maintaining interest rates at artificially low rates, CRA and Fannie and Freddie (the government putting the gun to the heads of the bankers and forcing them to make loans to very poor risks). President teleprompter has compounded the problem by greatly increasing government borrowing and debt which is very likely to trigger Greshams Law, and by increasing regulation of business and commerce which has put a halt to private enterprise hiring. The gangsters that need to be cleaned out inhabit D.C. Unfortunately they are increasing in number.

[larry kurtz]

You are describing Lincoln's first term perfectly, Ken. On behalf of Democrats who believe the earth haters in Congress are leading the electorate over the cliff, i salute and thank you.

[Mike Huggins]

I've actually been wondering about this for quite some time. I realize the Obama approval rating is quite low and will remain low as long as unemployment remains high. I don't think Obama can 'win' this election if things continute this way but, i think the Republicans can lose it. It seems that even before the election the republicans will running against Obama's economic policies(or lack there of)rather than there own. With the extreme views that seem to plague all the issues facing the country riht now..This seems like the only thing that may unify the base. BUt, to this point i just don't see a true Republican candidate and that can hurt.

[duggersd]

Mike, you make a great point about running against instead of for. I remember when Ronald Reagan ran for President in 1976. I could hardly wait to vote for him. Then I got another chance in 1980 and 1984. I have never regretted it. RR ran believing in something and brought the country with him. Romney just does not do it for me. If he is the nominee, I will vote for him, but it is mostly voting against Obama. I had thought Perry was the answer, but the guy talks even worse than Obama. Herman Cain can excite me, but I am not sure his plan can make it through the Congress. I would love to see Obama debating Newt, but I am pretty sure that won't happen. Maybe he can debate the Veep nominee, Hilla, um Biden.

[duggersd]

Mike, you make a great point about running against instead of for. I remember when Ronald Reagan ran for President in 1976. I could hardly wait to vote for him. Then I got another chance in 1980 and 1984. I have never regretted it. RR ran believing in something and brought the country with him. Romney just does not do it for me. If he is the nominee, I will vote for him, but it is mostly voting against Obama. I had thought Perry was the answer, but the guy talks even worse than Obama. Herman Cain can excite me, but I am not sure his plan can make it through the Congress. I would love to see Obama debating Newt, but I am pretty sure that won't happen. Maybe he can debate the Veep nominee, Hilla, um Biden.

[Jimi]

The second term election is always a referendum on the incumbent. The only way Obama can win at this point is if he campaigns as a Conservative Republican. He runs the risk of losing his base by doing so, but on that side of the isle, they tend to work these things out behind the scenes, knowing that Obama will have to lie to win, and they will except it for the election, and he will throw them a bone afterwards.

This President's base will vote for him regardless, they are non principled "Ends Justify the Means" thinkers so it definitely is not over yet. If the odds were right, I would bet that he wins by a small margin because Republican voters may attempt to pin the entire mess on the Democrats and force them to take responsiblity for once, because they are not that excited about any of the Republican Candidates, and they know the next guy will not be able to untangle the mess quick enough, which gives them a better opportunity in 2016. I'm just not sure the average Republican voter will be brave enough to play that type of strategy though.

[Donald Pay]

Jimi says: "The only way Obama can win at this point is if he campaigns as a Conservative Republican." Since he's governed as a Republican, I expect this wouldn't be much of a stretch for him.

I consider myself as part of the liberal/progressive base. I was never that enthusiastic about Obama. He was better than the alternative, but I was never under the illusion that he was more than a technocrat with ties to the corporate elite. At this point I'd like to vote against Obama, but with the Republican Party going into fascism, I'm afraid I'll be forced to vote for the guy.

I would love to vote for a Democrat, if we had one running in this election. Unfortunately the choice we'll have is between two Republicans. Obama has been saying some good things recently, but it's all talk.

[Jim McClarin]

Ah, you've overlooked the peace vote I'm afraid. The peace voters will have only two choices they can feel right about: stay home or cross over and vote for Republican Ron Paul, a far more convincing champion for ending the wars and bringing the troops home. For more, Google Blue Republicans.

[lrb]

Ron Paul 2012!

I find it interesting that, especially when it comes to a discussion about the merits of Ron Paul, "loony" is often the word used. Is it loony to be an ideologically sound candidate? I guess when America has been poisoned by politicians with forked tongues seeing someone whose actions never deviate from his words is hard to swallow. I agree that the DOP field is impotent -- with the glaring exception of Ron Paul.

There's been a lot of discussion about the status quo. Here's a candidate prepared to tear us from the status quo and put us back on the path to prosperity in many, many ways. Support Ron Paul!

[Bill Fleming]

...none of the "right Republicans" are running, KB.

Just a bunch of clowns in a clown car,
taking turns hitting the ding-dong thing
with a big, goofy hammer.

[duggersd]

But the problem with the "none of the right Republicans" comment is that there are at least four of them able to be Obama. Those "clowns" have more credibility than the POTUS.

[Bill Fleming]

Which four?
The problem with the Repubs these days is that their idea of a "leader"
is the guy who stands in the back of the room, yells the loudest,
and throws the biggest spitballs.

[George Mason]

Bill; Your description fits president teleprompter perfectly.

[Jimi]

"The problem with the Repubs these days is that their idea of a "leader"
is the guy who stands in the back of the room, yells the loudest,
and throws the biggest spitballs."

So when Republicans have power it's all thier fault, when they have no power it's all their fault, and when they share the power, it's all their fault? You guys on the Left are Pathetic!

The Democrats called the Republicans Evil and Stupid before the 2008 election. They begged for the job, their policies have clearly made things worse, and as Obama fails the Left can only claim that he leads like a Republican. He lies consistantly, doesn't ever reveal a clear position on anything, and uses platitudes as serious analysis and all you have to say is that the Republicans have a leadership problem. Go sell crazy somewhere else....we're all stocked up here!

If you haven't noticed, Since FDR the Democrats have had several Super Majorities in both Houses, Republicans have had none. Democrats have had the majority in the Senate (27 out of the past 39) Congress', and the Majority in the House (31 out of the past 39) Congress' Overall.....Democratic Party policies have ruled the trajectory of the United States, and people like you need to quit telling everyone else how bad their farts stink, and deal with your own odor problems.

[Donald Pay]

I don't know what world Jimi lives in, but his statement that "their policies have clearly made things worse" is pretty typical of the knownothingism that passes for Republican thought these days. He doesn't specify what he means about which policies and which things he's talking about. Yes, if you're a anti-corporate liberal, Obama has made things worse, but for the vast majority of Americans, things are better than they were under the last years of the Bush Administration.

[Jimi]

Donald,

"but for the vast majority of Americans, things are better than they were under the last years of the Bush Administration."

Coffee spewed out of my nose after I read this, I almost choked to death.

Unemployment is over double Bush's AVERAGE. Obama spent twice as much with a larger deficit, and if you take into account the long term CBO and OMB projections of results from Democratic Legisaltion since 2006, more than triple the accumulated debt of Bush entire term. Oh BTW, where is that grow economy Democrats like to point to Bush's and claim insuffcient? Oh that's right they don't believe in a grow economy. it would been nice if they would have informed everybody about that before the election?

The ObamaCare and Financial Regulations legislation alone brought business to a stand still. Obama dragged his feet on passing any Trade legislation, even though it has been on his desk since day one. He waisted the stimulus on cronism, and paying off political allies, which again forced small and large business to check up. He threatens Cap & Trade, Higher Energy Costs, tax Increaes on people making $250,000 or more, and his EPA has done more damage to the Free Market system than any legislaiton, agency or person in the history of this country, which all have brought a stand still to money flow, investment, and employment.

I understand that you are upset with Obama, everyone is, but these riduculous claims trying to make people beleive that he is actually aligned to the right or posesses Conservative economic thought and principles is just laughable. Obama and the Democrats have been exposed as absolute failures and they risk being out of power for a long time because of their Marxist leanings.

Besides, we both know that you will be voting for him regardless.

[Ken Blanchard]

Jimi: don't bother Donald with facts. It does no good. Far more people are worse off now than during the Bush years. I don't think that says much in Bush's favor. He didn't address the obvious bills that are coming due now. Obama's instinct to blame everything on Dubya is not without reason, but it is without relevance. Obama is in charge now and should be working on a solution to the problems we face. Instead, he has stopped governing in favor of campaigning.

[Bill Fleming]

A picture is worth a thousand words:
http://www.nojobsurvivor.com/graphs-stats-and-charts/job-losses-and-creation-by-month-137.html

[duggersd]

Bill, you are the master of manipulation. This graph is interesting and it is rather skewed. Why does it not show data for before 2008? It also includes data for either 16 or 18 months after BHO took office. He has been in office for nearly 32 months. I am wondering why the cutoff. BHO keeps telling us how his programs have saved, created or had an effect on X number of jobs. He points out that the job losses have decreased. What he does not point out is we are (hopefully) at the bottom of the recession. There are just not that many more jobs to lose. Also, if one were to look at a graph that pinpoints the monstrosity of a health care law, one would see the economy stalled when that law passed. Cause and effect? Hard to say, but the data is there.
I have no doubts Perry, Romney, Gingrich or Cain could beat Obama. In fact, as Rush says, Elmer Fudd could beat him.

[Bill Fleming]

You're welcome to provide your own chart, duggerSD.
Every one I've seen shows GWB running the country
into the ditch and the Obama administration pulling it back out.

Just think of how cool that graph could look if the GOP actually decided
to pitch in and help.

[Bill Fleming]

Things Rush doesn't tell DuggerSD:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010101196.html?hpid=topnews

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-19/markets/30079944_1_private-sector-public-sector-job-growth

[Bill Fleming]

Okay, just one more, this one's pretty current:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/08/obama-welcomes-jobs-report-says-singular-focus-is-boosting-job-creation/

[duggersd]

Glad to see his singular focus is on jobs again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss6FiDoWh1I&feature=player_embedded#!
117000 jobs does not even keep up with population growth. As a matter of fact, when Bush had a month similar to that, you Democrats said that was dismal. So, if it was dismal under Bush, it is dismal under Obama.
Here is a chart for you. http://www.healthcarebs.com/2011/07/20/stop-ocare-before-it-kills-jobs-again/ Notice, this one actually goes beyond 16 months into his presidency.

[Bill Fleming]

Then tell your GOP Congressmen and women to get with the program, DuggerSD. You're talkin' to the wrong guy here.

[duggersd]

Bill, I am not overly fond of the GOP, but since they have been listening more to the TEA party, I am liking them more. As far as I am concerned if they oppose the health care law and do what they can to repeal it, they are with the program. If they oppose this stupid idea of spending a half trillion dollars to make a couple of jobs at an average cost of $245,000 per job, they are with the program. If they work to turn around some of the stupid regulations and bans put on by this administration, they are with the program. If they are willing to either make the Obama tax cuts from last December permanent or overhaul the tax code completely, then they are with the program. If they are willing to go along to get along, then they are doing nothing to decrease unemployment and are not with the program. The only ones I see not with the program would be your brethren in the Democrat party.

[Bill Fleming]

Translation, if they willing to continue doing nothing, you're for them, right Dugger? Sounds about right.

[duggersd]

Bill, you really do not translate very well, but I expect that from you. There are concrete suggestions by the GOP that I have mentioned. Good luck with your spin, Champ. Spending into oblivion while taxing the couple of people who actually provide jobs makes so much sense. Obama and the rest of you Democrats want to spend one half of a trillion dollars and pay for it over ten years by tax increases on people who will pay nowhere near what the idiots who proposed it think it will. The GOP has offered real solutions and you Dems have offered more wasted money. I will take my chances with the GOP.

[Bill Fleming]

I think my translation is spot on, duggerSD. Let's wait and see if the GOP actually does anything, then we'll talk.

[Jimi]

Bill,

"Let's wait and see if the GOP actually does anything"

Again...Democrats control the Executive Branch and have majority in the Senate. Democrats also voted against and defeated their own President Obama's "Jobs" legislation in the Senate.

[duggersd]

Actually, Bill, I heard the GOP House has sent bills to the Senate and they cannot come up for a vote. BHO wanted his plan voted on and the Republicans offered to vote on it, but the Dems blocked it. So who is doing nothing? Has anybody actually introduced BHO's bill in the House yet? I know he could not get anybody to introduce it for a while. Maybe someone has. So who is doing nothing? BHO says it is either his way or the highway. The GOP has offered to take parts and pass them. BHO does not want that. Who is doing nothing? Keep spinning, champ.

[Bill Fleming]

The GOP blocked discussion of the bill in the Senate by filibustering the cloture vote. In spite of a majority voting otherwise. It ain't me spinnin' DuggerSD. http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_19093049