Popularity Is Relative: Why Nate Silver Is Too Pessimistic About Obama's Reelection

[Cha]

Chances

Snip..

"Nate Silver has an interesting (as usual) analysis of President Obama’s reelection chances, which he tabulates at a bit under 50-50. The catch is that he’s trying to quantify something that’s hard to quantify. The 2012 presidential race is pretty different. Obviously, every presidential race is different than the others, but this one seems to be extra different.

Silver's key assumption is that Obama's approval rating is likely to hover around 43 percent, where it currently stands. Obama is an incumbent presiding over a terrible economy. That is typically a recipe for doom. On the other hand, the terrible economy started under his predecessor, whom large numbers of Americans continue to blame. What’s more, the opposition party remains wildly unpopular, with a majority of Floridians recently saying they believe Republicans are deliberately sabotaging the economy. The election seems to pit the immovable object against the irresistible force — except, kind of, the opposite.

The prevailing view is that an election is a referendum on the incumbent. And, indeed, the Florida poll that shows a majority think Republicans are sabotaging the economy also shows that only 41 percent approve of Obama’s job performance. Hating the opposition doesn't make voters like the incumbent."

More by Jonathan Chait..
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/11/is_...wrong.html

[jaxx]

That's interesting Cha. As much as I like seeing a poll where PBO is doing good, I think it's way too early to give them anything but a look-see. I'll pay more attention to Nate's stuff to see what he's having to say. I miss a lot of it because it's the NYT and I don't subscribe and run out of freebies. I do have him on twitter. I love twitter! ;-)

[Born_A_Truman]

The election is a year out. Alot can happen although I have no illusions that the current crop of GOP will lift a finger to help the economy. I hope they pay dearly for what they are doing to the people in their quest to destroy our president.

[Willinois]

It's pretty simple.

1) Republican obstruction in Congress makes it easy for Obama to blame the slow recovery on them. The stimulus helped but they stopped Obama from doing much more, which is why Obama will be able to campaign for a Democratic majority in Congress. The Tea Party owns this economy. It's exactly how FDR got elected to his 2nd term.

2) Obama is an incredible campaigner. His numbers will go up with increased exposure.

3) Republicans don't have a serious candidate.

Chances of Obama losing are very slim.

[Cha]

I think it's way too early for Nate Silver to be predicting too so when I saw this rebuttal I just had to post it.

Must have gotten the repub candidates' hopes up though..as lame as they are..thanks, Nate.

[cannae1]

I see the Nov 2012 election as being close. There is a real risk that PBO can lose the election.
45% of those who vote will vote GOP no matter what; the economy is terrible and we face years of stagnation; most voters are low information and vote on emotion.

This should be taken as a warning tat the election will be close and can be lost.
GOTV is very important; only about half the voting age population bothers to vote.

[OptimistesMaddie]

These numbers are irrelevant as far as I am concerned....

Why?
1. 2012 U.S soldiers will be out of Iraq
2. Draw down in Afghanastan is going to happen
3. Whomever the Repub challanger is will not be able to compete in debates and as the Repugs usually do they will go insane....the Repug nominee will say they want to go to war with Iran....(the response should be No and with whose children?)
4. PBO is going to implement more executive orders......(when the right wing screams he is bypassing congress, he will pull the actual voting records of the Repugs)
5. Commercial gold.....the Repugs have provided years worth of material for ads...

My question is when do we call out the Michael Moores and say to them. Who the F are you going to vote for? Put up or shut up....do you want to stop the Koch brothers? Do you want vast right wing Supreme Court? If Moore and others think that the economy can't get any worse then put the Repugs in power......again......

[Cha]

(11-06-2011 05:06 PM)OptimistesMaddie Wrote:  These numbers are irrelevant as far as I am concerned....

Why?
1. 2012 U.S soldiers will be out of Iraq
2. Draw down in Afghanastan is going to happen
3. Whomever the Repub challanger is will not be able to compete in debates and as the Repugs usually do they will go insane....the Repug nominee will say they want to go to war with Iran....(the response should be No and with whose children?)
4. PBO is going to implement more executive orders......(when the right wing screams he is bypassing congress, he will pull the actual voting records of the Repugs)
5. Commercial gold.....the Repugs have provided years worth of material for ads...

My question is when do we call out the Michael Moores and say to them. Who the F are you going to vote for? Put up or shut up....do you want to stop the Koch brothers? Do you want vast right wing Supreme Court? If Moore and others think that the economy can't get any worse then put the Repugs in power......again......

But, but, but, I just read mediawhore, David Gregory, said PBObama can't run on his record! The mws are going all out this week since Obama's numbers are UP!

[Cha]

"This weekend, The New York Times Magazine ran a long analysis of the 2012 election headlined, "Is Obama toast?"

It uses a mathematical formula to conclude who will win this race.

In other words, it says neither you nor Barack Obama has a role to play in this election, because the outcome is essentially predetermined.

We disagree.

The outcome will depend on what we do every single day between now and November 6th, 2012. And I want to give you an idea of how we know that.

Our Republican opponents, from Mitt Romney and Herman Cain to Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, have endorsed the same set of Tea Party policies that drive the Republicans in Washington: letting Wall Street write its own rules again and giving special treatment to millionaires and billionaires while asking seniors and middle-class families to pay for it.

All of them would return to the failed economic policies that led us into recession.

Yet the Times piece assigns each of them a score on an ideological scale, ignoring the obvious reality that there has been virtually no difference among the GOP candidates -- or between them and the Republican congressional leaders who refuse to do anything to restore economic security for the middle class.

Whoever wins the nomination will no doubt try to appear more "moderate" as they compete for undecided voters in the general election. But they have all made their positions clear. And we will hold them accountable for that."

The only true difference in this race is between their agenda and President Obama's. Facing historic challenges when he came into office, he has fought every day for a fairer economy where everybody who does their fair share gets a fair shake.

He's stood up to credit card companies to ensure they can't target consumers with hidden fees. He's stood up to insurance companies, who can no longer deny health care coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition. He's stood up to Wall Street to end taxpayer bailouts and rein in the kind of risky financial behavior that nearly toppled our economy.

These dramatic differences between the Republican nominee and President Obama will be crystal clear to Americans as the 2012 election approaches, because our grassroots organization in all 50 states will be having conversations every single day with their friends, families, co-workers, and neighbors.

That grassroots organizational advantage is a critical factor in this election that the Times' "formula" doesn't consider at all.

More than 1 million people have already taken ownership of this campaign. Millions more are organizing their communities on behalf of the President, online and off. This weekend, we had our single biggest day of action of the campaign -- more than 2,000 volunteer events took place across the country, and more than 10,000 volunteers participated.

This work is already having an impact across the country.

We expanded the electoral map in the last election, fighting hard for -- and winning -- states like North Carolina, Colorado, and Virginia so that the entire election didn't hinge on the results in a single state, as it had in 2000 and 2004.

We have no intention of returning to the old electoral map. And the organizing you're doing means we won't have to. Today, we are showing signs of strength in states we didn't win even in the watershed election of 2008 -- states like Georgia and Arizona, where a recent poll had President Obama beating every potential Republican nominee.

The map isn't as friendly to our opponents, who won't be able to compete in traditionally Democratic states because their organization won't compare to ours. Whether you measure donors giving or doors knocked, there's grassroots enthusiasm for President Obama that the other side can't match -- but that the Times doesn't consider relevant.

The truth is this isn't the first time you've been written out of the story by many in Washington and the media -- and it's not the first time they've been completely wrong about that.

In the 2007 and 2008 campaign, almost everyone in professional politics said it wasn't Barack Obama's "turn" to be president. But millions of people like you took responsibility for the campaign -- knocking on doors, making phone calls, and donating whenever you could.

You proved everyone wrong -- not just about who was going to win the election, but about the ability of everyday Americans to come together and change the course of history.

The entire premise of the Times article is that you won't -- and can't -- do it in 2012.

The election is now less than one year away. No one thinks it will be easy. But there can be no doubt its outcome depends on how hard you and I work over the next 364 days. Right now, we're opening field offices in key states, hiring organizers, recruiting volunteers, registering voters, and getting ready for what's going to be one hell of a fight.

So, is Obama toast? It's up to you.

- Messina

Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

It's long but worthy..

[sandnsea]

Osama, Gadaffi, Al Awakiri.
Iraq war is over.
Stock market is good, (no matter what they pretend).
We aren't in a depression.

That should do it, if the DNC would just stand up and crow instead of thinking they have to eat crow because of the rantings of some dumbass Blue Dog.

[Cha]

Tweet seen on theobamadiary..

sneak preview Obama beats Romney 49-43 in new NBC/WSJ Poll. Beats Cain by 15 points. Keep talking GOP. U make him look good.

theobamadiary

[jaxx]

I saw a piece of toast today with Herman Cain written on it......there's the toast.

I like Messina, he's reality rooted.


thinkprogress ThinkProgress
NBC POLL: Americans view the Democratic Party positively (+3) and the GOP negatively (-14) thkpr.gs/sS9MJc

[Drunken Irishman]

I think Silver's problem is that he's comparing this election to past ones and that's just not fair.

Yes, in a great deal of instances, unpopular incumbents had difficulty winning reelection. George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter are examples of two presidents who not only lost their bid for a second term, but barely registered in the electoral college.

That's not going to be the case this time around. The electoral college has dramatically changed since 1992 and solidified more Democratic than the base was in the 1980s.

Remember, in 1988, George Bush won California. Outside of a complete implosion by Obama, there is absolutely no chance California goes Democratic. The last time it was ever potentially up for grabs was in 2000, when Bush thought he had an outside chance of winning it, campaigned there briefly, realized it was not going to him and focused on the other real swing states. Gore won California by a wide margin.

To expand further on what I'm talking about, in 1992, Vermont was considered a Republican state. Clinton was actually the first Democrat to win that state in a long run and today, it's unfathomable to think the Republicans have a shot there.

That really goes for almost all of the north east, excluding New Hampshire. Twenty years ago, only Massachusetts was considered a strong Democratic state. Even New York, which Dukakis carried in '88, was still only four years removed from going Reagan in '84.

Every other NE state was in play in 1988. New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Connecticut all went Bush in '88.

Again, it's hard to imagine any of those states going Republican - even with a supposed moderate NEer like Romney running on the ticket. Out of that batch, maybe New Jersey is the closest to a swing state, but even though it has flirted going Republican in the last four elections (there was some talk of Bush winning it in '04, to the point where they went hard at it late), it's still a state that, in the end, votes Democratic.

That's a lot of electoral votes that, 24 years ago, were up for grabs. Not anymore, though. They're solidly Democratic and will remain Democratic.

That right there, not counting New Hampshire, is a base of 88 electoral votes that will probably go Democratic in every election from here until we see another radical shift in political ideology.

Add California, which again, as I mentioned, was considered a swing state not even twenty-five years ago, and you're now up to 143 electoral votes - or more than Dukakis won in '88.

Then you add additional Democratic-strong states like Washington, Oregon, Illinois and Minnesota and now you're looking at a base of 192 electoral votes. That's less than 100 from victory.

Twenty years ago, that wasn't a guarantee and I didn't include Democratic-leaning states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which have been traditionally closer than the last batch I listed. Add those, and the Democrat is now at 238, just 32 electoral votes away from winning.

That, IMO, is where Obama enters '12. 32 electoral votes from winning reelection. No other incumbent, even Clinton in '96, has had that big of foundation to build a reelection campaign on. Reagan in '84 eventually walked to victory, but that was an overall dominant election and the Republican base level wasn't nearly as high - he just blew that thing up, as did Bush in '88 and Clinton in '92/96.

For the Republicans, they've actually seen the electoral map shrink a bit. Not only have Democrats made strong strides in the west (thirty-years ago, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada were not swing states), they've started pulling in support in the South.

Those two regions, Republicans dominated and, as I mentioned, California (along with Oregon and Washington) were far more swing than they are today.

So the Republican's base package still includes a great deal of the South (West Virginia is the only state in this region that went Democratic in the 80s and 90s and switched Republican), which make up 78 electoral votes (less than the Democrats' strength in the NE), part of the Midwest (not counting Iowa, Missouri - which is swing - and Minnesota, though including Texas, which could be inching toward swing with every election) for 140 electoral votes (130 from winning) and some of the West (Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana) for just 167 electoral votes. Throw in Alaska, and you get an even 170 - still 100 away from victory.

That is essentially the Republican's base when it comes to the electoral college. Now clearly they've been able to exceed that recently (2000, 2004 and '08 - by three), but it essentially took them winning almost all the swing states to win the presidency.

That can happen and there is no doubt it's possible Romney finds enough swing states to push his total to 270.

But it would require threading the needle and even so, it generally would end with a narrow victory and nothing like their last real romp, the '88 election. In fact, that was the last time a Republican presidential candidate has won a general by a comfortable margin. Every other candidate has either lost in a blowout (Bush in '92, Dole in '96, McCain in '08), or won by the narrowest of margins.

If Romney is going to win, it'll be very similar to the total Bush did in '00 and '04, meaning it comes down to one state.

IF that's the case, it seems futile, at least right now, to say Obama stands less than a 50% chance of winning reelection when you realize it takes the Republicans running the table in so many swing states now to win the White House.

All Obama has to do is win those Democratic-strong states, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and one or two more major swing states (Virginia, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio or Florida) and he passes the 270 needed to win.

The Republican nominee can't say that. They're going to have to win Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, hold North Carolina/Virginia, while also holding Ohio and Florida - because a loss in either of those states will spell doom.

So Democrats have a far larger margin of error and have for quite a bit. As Bush proved, though, the Republicans can play the perfect campaign and negate that deficit, but it's hard and Bush didn't face a candidate as well-liked as Obama. He might not be entirely popular with his policies, but Americans like him. I don't think they liked Kerry or Gore much.

That alone should put Obama as the favorite and until his numbers sink so low that he starts losing those Democratic-strong states, which I think is unlikely, I'll remain confident that, in the end, he'll win.

[Drunken Irishman]

And I just realized I left out Hawaii, which would put Obama's base at 242, so 28 electoral votes away from winning.

That's without Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio or Missouri.

If you add Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico, which seem to be strongly-leaning Obama right now, he's at 262, or 8 electoral votes away from winning. The Republican nominee, throwing Indiana to them (I think it's unlikely Obama wins there again, but who knows), still would be 89 electoral votes away from winning.

That would require Ohio + Florida + Missouri + New Hampshire + Virginia + North Carolina

Doable? Sure. Likely? That's the question. Bush was able to do it. But North Carolina and Virginia are so much more swing today than they were eight years ago that it makes it harder to play the field. In '04, Bush only had to focus on Ohio and Florida, really, but Romney (or the Repub winner), will have to focus far more on states that, eight and twelve years ago, weren't up for grabs.

Lose just one of those major states, whether it's Ohio or Florida or Missouri or North Carolina or Virginia, it's over - there's no path to victory outside flipping an Obama state.

That's with Nevada not going Obama.

[jaxx]

Good analysis DI, thanks. I just want to see 270 on the Obama side, however it comes. ;-)