Obama's Polling numbers following "the Bush trajectory"

[djAdvocate]

lowest numbers of presidency:

www.google.com/search?q=obama+approval&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=obama+approval&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=nws

he is losing on every front, as far as i can tell- even immigration reform, which seems like a clear winner for him.

from the WaPo article listed above:

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Actually, second terms are rarely good for Presidents no matter who they are- I say that because fair is fair.

ObamaCare has the potential of being a non-recoverable drag on the Obama Presidency.

And not to nit pick, but Obama's poll numbers are actually lower than Bush's poll numbers at this same point in the Bush Presidency.

Obama, however, has a history of being able to quickly recover from scandal and rebound in the polls. However, that's usually because when it's something like Fast and Furious, Benghazi, The IRS targeting scandal, the NSA scandal, and basically any scandal of any President-- it's easy to distract people from the issue because most issues don't affect people. The unique property of the massive ObamaCare deception and scandal is that it affects every single American, none in a good way, and it keeps on unwinding with new and alarming bad news almost on a daily basis.

Is it possible for Obama to "pivot" on this one? Yes. But it's going to be far more difficult- and that's mostly because the Democratic Party has done such a good job of amping up the importance of healthcare in the minds of most Americans such that it is THE most important issue to many people, and ObamaCare seems to be jerking the healthcare rug out from under many people.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 10, 2013 15:02:10 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

And not to nit pick, but Obama's poll numbers are actually lower than Bush's poll numbers at this same point in the Bush Presidency.

i don't believe that is true, Paul- at least according to Pew.

Obama, however, has a history of being able to quickly recover from scandal and rebound in the polls. However, that's usually because when it's something like Fast and Furious, Benghazi, The IRS targeting scandal, the NSA scandal, and basically any scandal of any President-- it's easy to distract people from the issue because most issues don't affect people. The unique property of the massive ObamaCare deception and scandal is that it affects every single American, none in a good way, and it keeps on unwinding with new and alarming bad news almost on a daily basis.

Is it possible for Obama to "pivot" on this one? Yes. But it's going to be far more difficult- and that's mostly because the Democratic Party has done such a good job of amping up the importance of healthcare in the minds of most Americans such that it is THE most important issue to many people, and ObamaCare seems to be jerking the healthcare rug out from under many people.

i actually agree with you here, mostly.  making this his centerpiece- his baby- means that he will live or die by it.

[Value Buy]

Who cares? He is talking about a big increase in minimum wage, which will destroy the lower class in job creation.
He will not be running for any office anyway, so darn the Presidential polling numbers.

[Miss Tequila]

Let me guess, his poll numbers are Bush's fault:-p

[djAdvocate]

Nov 10, 2013 21:49:31 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Who cares? He is talking about a big increase in minimum wage, which will destroy the lower class in job creation.

there is no evidence that this is true, VB.

He will not be running for any office anyway, so darn the Presidential polling numbers.

possibly.  i think people care about stuff like this, tho.  certainly the Democratic Party does.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 10, 2013 21:53:26 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Let me guess, his poll numbers are Bush's fault:-p

no, he will have a great deal of trouble blaming Bush for this. 

[Deleted]

 Many Americans want novelty. They crave sensation. They demand Drama.
Action.
Cliff-hangers.
  Well, the novelty's worn off.
 Numbed by the constant onslaught of non-news/infotainment, attention spans aren't as long as they used to be; boredom has set in. Osama bin Laden is nearly forgotten.
 And Obama keeps deftly side-stepping much of the Drama.

 All he needs is one good publicity stunt and he'll be right back up there in the polls... over-night.

 

[EVT1]

Nov 10, 2013 21:49:31 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Who cares? He is talking about a big increase in minimum wage, which will destroy the lower class in job creation.
He will not be running for any office anyway, so darn the Presidential polling numbers.

Destroy the lower class?   At what point would you like to end corporate welfare?  Do you like our current policy of providing cheap labor to corporate America?  Damn right- fix minimum wage and the welfare rolls drop- time to put that burden where it belongs.

[Lizard King]

Of course, the combination of minimum wage reform and healthcare reform will mean that the 'burden' will be borne by the minimum-wage worker with less disposable income and the middle class worker who subsidizes their premium (but leaves their deductible, copay, and coinsurance - 40% on a Bronze plan - for the minimum-wage worker who just lost Medicaid eligibility), and the benefit will accrue to... yes, the big insurance companies.

In fact, raising the minimum wage is a form of corporate welfare, a repeat performance of the disingenuous boondoggle of "you can keep your healthcare plan."

It just takes some joined-up thinking to see it.

[Lizard King]

Katrina killed the Bush presidency. Post-Katrina, the popular view took root that Bush had no idea what he was doing. That view was already pretty well-entrenched among partisans, but it became common currency after Katrina.

Whether the debacle of the Obamacare rollout has done the same for public perceptions of Obama it's still too soon to say, but I think it may have done. This was always the political risk he ran by making it such a personal quest. The bet still is that the thing turns around and helps enough people that public opinion of it, and him, is restored; but I really don't expect that it will.

I think we'll see stories, but I think we'll have had weeks of negativity first to poison the well. When your detractors argue that you're creating winners and losers, and part of the PR problem is public resentment that it's the government arbitrarily picking who's deserving and who isn't, pointing out this deserving person you've helped doesn't undermine the critical narrative. And there's a fine line between reassuring somebody you've hurt and dismissing them, and Obama is struggling with that line right now.

[Shooby]

What do polling numbers matter in the second term?  That won't hurt him a bit.  It might affect some midterm elections but what does he care?

[Lizard King]

I think for him it's just a pride thing, and he'll get over that.

This is a necessary repositioning, since the Clinton-in-Waiting represents a different coalition of the Democratic Party. We have to discredit the incumbent so that we can prepare the ground for "Change You Can Believe In redux."

If you read between the lines of coverage, indeed if you look at the frame dj quotes in the OP, you'll see that what's happening is just what happened in 2008 and 2012 - the association by means of propaganda techniques of an inconvenient figurehead with a toxic brand. Bush is actually less toxic now - in fact I think his current retrospective poll numbers put him well ahead of Obama - but the idea of Bush, dumb incompetent arrogant overreaching partisan neocon Bush, is not popular, and that's the idea Obama is being tied to. Just him, not the Congressional party that crafted his namesake legislation and bears responsibility for most of the failures of his tenure.

And the reason for this, of course, is that come 2016 the drivers of this narrative want a (D) in the White House, and their best bet on paper is the Clinton-in-Waiting.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Nov 11, 2013 0:12:11 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

 Many Americans want novelty. They crave sensation. They demand Drama.
Action.
Cliff-hangers.
  Well, the novelty's worn off.
 Numbed by the constant onslaught of non-news/infotainment, attention spans aren't as long as they used to be; boredom has set in. Osama bin Laden is nearly forgotten.
 And Obama keeps deftly side-stepping much of the Drama.

 All he needs is one good publicity stunt and he'll be right back up there in the polls... over-night.

 

I believe this is about right.  The question, however, is whether or not his personal trainwreck- bearing his name: ObamaCare will be a different kind of scandal because it affects literally every single American's healthcare- the single most important thing in the majority of voter's lives.  And it's not over.  Nearly every day a new and unpleasant consequence of ObamaCare comes into view.

[Shooby]

Well, he FINALLY has to bear responsibility for something, Obamacare.  Up to now, he just used his "Stupid" act of "I didn't know, blah, blah.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Nov 10, 2013 20:39:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Nov 10, 2013 15:02:10 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

And not to nit pick, but Obama's poll numbers are actually lower than Bush's poll numbers at this same point in the Bush Presidency.

i don't believe that is true, Paul- at least according to Pew.

Obama, however, has a history of being able to quickly recover from scandal and rebound in the polls. However, that's usually because when it's something like Fast and Furious, Benghazi, The IRS targeting scandal, the NSA scandal, and basically any scandal of any President-- it's easy to distract people from the issue because most issues don't affect people. The unique property of the massive ObamaCare deception and scandal is that it affects every single American, none in a good way, and it keeps on unwinding with new and alarming bad news almost on a daily basis.

Is it possible for Obama to "pivot" on this one? Yes. But it's going to be far more difficult- and that's mostly because the Democratic Party has done such a good job of amping up the importance of healthcare in the minds of most Americans such that it is THE most important issue to many people, and ObamaCare seems to be jerking the healthcare rug out from under many people.

i actually agree with you here, mostly.  making this his centerpiece- his baby- means that he will live or die by it.

In a nutshell, yes.  And this being politics, I wouldn't rule out pulling out of the ObamaCare nose-dive, but I think he's in a very precarious position right now.  Actually, more accurately- the Democrats are in a very precarious position.  If Obama holds firm to no major changes to ObamaCare- it will torpedo the party.  However, the trainwreck as I pointed out has legs- and momentum is building for legislation to "fix the broken promise" (Granted, they aren't calling it that) and it's mostly being proposed by Democrats- most notably Mary Landrieu, (D) LA who is up for re-election.  This has the potential to be another 2010 for the Democrats- could overshadow the RINO - TEA party fight.

[skweet]

There is no question that Obamacare is tied to the President, and will become his only legacy if it is not deconstructed. It is currently damaging his polls, but polls no longer matter to his political career. Nobody in congress voted for Katrina, but there is a long list of senators and congressmen that voted for Obamacare. Will "I didn't read it, because we had to pass it to find out what is in it" be the unlikely, best defense in the coming elections? Personally I think Blue distracts are Blue, and damage will be limited. The real damage will be to the Republicans that caved in the last government standoff. They will be held responsible, as they held the only realistic opportunity to stop the law in 7 years.

[Deleted]

The poor are always hurt the most by market meddling (and by meddling, I mean going beyond common sense regulations that level the playing field and prevent abuse, etc).

A sudden and significant increase in the minimum wage will suddenly make technology that replaces low-skill workers more affordable.  I suppose on the bright side, that would eventually encourage at least some people to develop new skills.

At MCO the other day, I saw one of the restaruants in the food court had computers taking people's orders.  I'm guessing they'd all be doing that if min wage went up to $10-12.

[Deleted]

Nov 11, 2013 10:20:58 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

The poor are always hurt the most by market meddling (and by meddling, I mean going beyond common sense regulations that level the playing field and prevent abuse, etc).

A sudden and significant increase in the minimum wage will suddenly make technology that replaces low-skill workers more affordable.  I suppose on the bright side, that would eventually encourage at least some people to develop new skills.

At MCO the other day, I saw one of the restaruants in the food court had computers taking people's orders.  I'm guessing they'd all be doing that if min wage went up to $10-12.

yep.....

as wages rise, the low skill jobs will be lost to automation

but....shhhhhhhhhh..........talking sense around here is frowned upon

[djAdvocate]

Nov 11, 2013 8:56:33 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Well, he FINALLY has to bear responsibility for something, Obamacare.  Up to now, he just used his "Stupid" act of "I didn't know, blah, blah.

oh, he will try to pawn that off, too.  after all- he didn't get his "public option".

[djAdvocate]

Nov 11, 2013 7:47:24 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

Of course, the combination of minimum wage reform and healthcare reform will mean that the 'burden' will be borne by the minimum-wage worker with less disposable income and the middle class worker who subsidizes their premium (but leaves their deductible, copay, and coinsurance - 40% on a Bronze plan - for the minimum-wage worker who just lost Medicaid eligibility), and the benefit will accrue to... yes, the big insurance companies.

In fact, raising the minimum wage is a form of corporate welfare, a repeat performance of the disingenuous boondoggle of "you can keep your healthcare plan."

i am interested in your reasoning: how does increasing minimum wage BENEFIT corporations?

It just takes some joined-up thinking to see it.

enlighten me.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 11, 2013 9:56:11 GMT -5 skweet said:

There is no question that Obamacare is tied to the President, and will become his only legacy if it is not deconstructed. It is currently damaging his polls, but polls no longer matter to his political career. Nobody in congress voted for Katrina, but there is a long list of senators and congressmen that voted for Obamacare. Will "I didn't read it, because we had to pass it to find out what is in it" be the unlikely, best defense in the coming elections? Personally I think Blue distracts are Blue, and damage will be limited. The real damage will be to the Republicans that caved in the last government standoff. They will be held responsible, as they held the only realistic opportunity to stop the law in 7 years.

you just pointed out why i expect very little change in congress in 2014.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 11, 2013 10:20:58 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

The poor are always hurt the most by market meddling (and by meddling, I mean going beyond common sense regulations that level the playing field and prevent abuse, etc).

A sudden and significant increase in the minimum wage will suddenly make technology that replaces low-skill workers more affordable.  I suppose on the bright side, that would eventually encourage at least some people to develop new skills.

At MCO the other day, I saw one of the restaruants in the food court had computers taking people's orders.  I'm guessing they'd all be doing that if min wage went up to $10-12.

i will GUARANTEE that we get to find out.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 11, 2013 10:34:09 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

Nov 11, 2013 10:20:58 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

The poor are always hurt the most by market meddling (and by meddling, I mean going beyond common sense regulations that level the playing field and prevent abuse, etc).

A sudden and significant increase in the minimum wage will suddenly make technology that replaces low-skill workers more affordable.  I suppose on the bright side, that would eventually encourage at least some people to develop new skills.

At MCO the other day, I saw one of the restaruants in the food court had computers taking people's orders.  I'm guessing they'd all be doing that if min wage went up to $10-12.

yep.....

as wages rise, the low skill jobs will be lost to automation

but....shhhhhhhhhh..........talking sense around here is frowned upon

it might be well to consider what minimum wage jobs will BECOME in that instance. 

[Lizard King]

you just pointed out why i expect very little change in congress in 2014.

Blue districts are blue, but blue states are densely-populated islands of blue in seas of red. Generally, the concentration of votes in areas of the state that encourage people to embrace rather than transcend their poverty - that is, to accept the welfare that rationally incentives people to remain below that percentage of FPL that qualifies them for more welfare, as opposed to lifting themselves from poverty into low-paid work of uncertain prospects but certainly greater costs - is sufficient to return Democratic Senators.

Red states, on the other hand, and Democratic Senators are defending a good handful of those in this cycle, aren't inclined to accept heavyhanded and hamfisted interventionism. In those states, a groundswell of anger at the blue brand may be enough to topple incumbents. Of course, if enough's been done to mollify them by then, it may not. I'm assuming that most of us believe Democrats will be able to shuffle the deckchairs some more and spare some of the losers they've created the immediate cost of losing - but surely all of us have to recognize that this just creates more losers in the long run. At some point, you have to lose the seats your policy positions merit you losing, as Republicans did in 2006 and 2008.

[djAdvocate]

Nov 11, 2013 11:40:07 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

you just pointed out why i expect very little change in congress in 2014.

Blue districts are blue, but blue states are densely-populated islands of blue in seas of red. Generally, the concentration of votes in areas of the state that encourage people to embrace rather than transcend their poverty - that is, to accept the welfare that rationally incentives people to remain below that percentage of FPL that qualifies them for more welfare, as opposed to lifting themselves from poverty into low-paid work of uncertain prospects but certainly greater costs - is sufficient to return Democratic Senators.

Red states, on the other hand, and Democratic Senators are defending a good handful of those in this cycle, aren't inclined to accept heavyhanded and hamfisted interventionism. In those states, a groundswell of anger at the blue brand may be enough to topple incumbents. Of course, if enough's been done to mollify them by then, it may not. I'm assuming that most of us believe Democrats will be able to shuffle the deckchairs some more and spare some of the losers they've created the immediate cost of losing - but surely all of us have to recognize that this just creates more losers in the long run. At some point, you have to lose the seats your policy positions merit you losing, as Republicans did in 2006 and 2008.

i expect Democrats to lose seats in the Senate, but gain them in the house in 2014.  it is "regression to the mean" that i would cite, however- not any "shift in attitudes".

[Opti]

as wages rise, the low skill jobs will be lost to automation

Jobs at all levels are lost to automation and increasing computerization as it
becomes economically viable. They aren't all low skill jobs. Surgeons use
computer-aided surgery to perform surgeries quicker. That means they
make less per surgery. When I graduated from college one of the jobs I
interviewed for involved robots used in painting cars in manufacturering lines.
Auto jobs were fairly well-paid back in the 1980s.


Not raising minimum wage is not going to stop automation and computerization
from affecting jobs at all wage levels. Every year computers get faster and
chips can get smaller. Freezing wages wouldn't affect that in the least.

[Opti]

Another example but I can't remember the name of the machine, not Praxis but
something similar. In the TV series Nurse Jackie the hospital pharmacist loses his
job when they bring in this machine. I think the sub-acute facility I work for must
have one as I heard it mentioned the other day. Pharmacist is not a low-skilled job.
It was a 6 year degree back when I went through college.



Paying people badly won't stop any of the movement towards more machines and
computers in our lives.

[Lizard King]

Paying people badly won't stop any of the movement towards more machines and
computers in our lives.

I agree, although I take some issue in the abstract with the notion that any working American is paid 'badly' as a subset of the world's workforce.

It's also the case that raising the minimum wage could still accelerate a negative trend, or several negative trends, that would be around absent the raise.

It's a hyperbolic analogy, but: people will die anyway, guaranteed, when their hearts give out if nothing else. This isn't an excuse for executing them on their 35th birthday a la Logan's Run.

[Lizard King]

i expect Democrats to lose seats in the Senate, but gain them in the house in 2014. it is "regression to the mean" that i would cite, however- not any "shift in attitudes".

We'll see. I think the way districts are mapped in the House, the mean there sees a Republican advantage and a burgeoning strength of fairly hardline Republicans to boot. The way the Senate pans out,the mood of non-partisans in the center dictates the trend. A lot depends on how the incumbent is viewed; it's a truism that elections are generally referenda on incumbents' performance. To the extent that Democratic Senators are identified with Obamacare, and Obamacare is identified with overreach, incompetence, and pocketbook pain, they're going to have a problem.

I can see potential for 2014 to be something of a single-issue election, and to the extent that the potential is realized, it's going to tilt the balance of power toward the GOP. 2016 will be your "regression to the mean," I think.