Obama -vs- Bush approval

[djAdvocate]

Obama and Bush both entered their second terms with about 50% approval.

in the first year after their 2nd elections, Obama's approval tracked Bush's pretty well: they both dropped about 10%.  however, in the last six months, Obama's approval numbers have started to diverge.  this may very well be due to economic conditions, which had started to show some signs of trouble for Bush in 2006.  Obama is on the opposite side of that equation: the economy is behaving pretty well, so his numbers have stabilized.  and the result is that Obama's numbers are about 5% higher than where Bush's were in 2006 at this time.

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_bush_first_term_job_approval.html

for those of you wondering why i am posting this: the GOP lost big in 2006.  the prediction is now that Obama will lose big in 2014, but his numbers are not nearly as bad.  i am just wondering if everyone here thinks that the data spells serious problems for Obama, or whether his situation is much better than Bush's was.

one more thing to add: the papers have picked up on this meme that ObamaCare is to blame for the downtrend, but that doesn't appear to be accurate, as many presidents have had this second term slump in the first two years without anything as dramatic as ObamaCare mangling things up for them.

opinions?

[djAdvocate]

maybe ObamaCare is Obama's Iraq War.  people were really tired of the Iraq War by 2006.  so, in that sense, maybe the electorate is experiencing similar fatigue?

[happyhoix]

one more thing to add: the papers have picked up on this meme that ObamaCare is to blame for the downtrend, but that doesn't appear to be accurate, as many presidents have had this second term slump in the first two years without anything as dramatic as ObamaCare mangling things up for them.

I remember at the end of the last Bush administration the Iraq war was extremely unpopular. It didn't find what it was supposed to find (WMD), seemed to have no end in site, and was extremely expensive, in both money and men. I live in a very republican area of the country, and even here there were  lot of grass roots complaints about the war.

I haven't heard the same kind of negative grass roots comments about Obamacare. Most people around here don't like him and have the opinion that the country is going to hell in a handbasket because of him, but there aren't many comments specifically about Obamacare. I don't know if that's because it's too early to tell how the program will ultimately shake out, or because I also live in a very poor rural area and there are a lot of people around here who previously didn't have healthcare but were able to get it now.

[billisonboard]

Mar 31, 2014 7:41:02 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

... Ends two wars. ...

Iraq and ??

[djAdvocate]

Mar 31, 2014 7:41:02 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I agree that the hype against Obamacare is oversold.  I do know people who have signed up for it and are very pleased with their decision.  Time will tell if the glitches are severe enough to derail the program or if it will ultimately provide the coverage to the numbers of people anticipated.  If it does, it will ultimately be successful, or at least the first step in a realignment of health care administration.

I do think that there is a general malaise with Obama.  He is a detached, cool and low key operator, who really has done little to inspire any passion or enthusiasm amongst his natural allies.  Of course his political opponents will naturally continue to oppose and detest him.  So his approvals are low and limp along, and it doesn't help the Democrat's chances in the 2014 elections.

It will be interesting to see Obama's legacy though, especially if the ACA is ultimately either a success, or even just "not a failure".  Ends two wars. Steers the economy out of the worst downturn since the Great Depression despite Congressional opposition.  The ACA.  It could be better than you think.

here is thing tho, dem.  if you listen to the GOP, it appears that their campaign strategy hinges on the ACA.  even Nate Silver thinks so.  so, if the opposition softens, or gets no worse, how are they going to capitalize on that?

"disasterous" only works if you are in the middle of the disaster.  the ACA will be 9 months running by election time.

[Value Buy]

Obamacare- it remains to be seen how many people actually start making payments to the insurance companies.

The poorest percent of the population have no problem with the program. The government picks up the vast majority of the monthly bill for them.

The middle class is the unproven area, when they have to come up with 100 to 200 a month for the premium.

Do they have the disposable income to pay it every month?

Social Security was so different. Came out of your check and your payout was based what you put into it over the years. Obamacare is so different. The payback is immediate and has nothing to do with what you paid into it.

Remains to be seen whether this will work short time, or long time. 

Excuse my ignorance on this insurance program, but do the payments get deducted from your paycheck, or is this a contract with an insurance company where you write the check every month, or six months?

This could be a big problem for the program.

[billisonboard]

Mar 31, 2014 12:05:07 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Mar 31, 2014 8:47:20 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Iraq and ??

Good point.  I'm assuming that our involvement in Afghanistan actually does end during his term. 

My unfulfilled thought it would end in his first term, along with Gitmo, cost him my vote in 2012. Wonder how the issues will impact my vote in 2016.

[Lizard King]

It's interesting to compare Obama's job approval with Bush's at the same point in his tenure, and it's accurate to suggest that all incumbent Presidents who reach a sixth year find an electorate somewhat ready to tune them out at best, or kick them out at worst, and that does generally translate into performance at the polls for the President's party to some extent.

A more relevant comparison for two-term Presidents is arguably looking at their second-term relative to their first. In March 2010, Gallup had the President's approval-disapproval at 49-44. In March 2014, Gallup has the President's approval-disapproval at 45-50, a roughly ten-point negative swing. The most recent weekly average at Gallup had the President polling at 43% approval.

On polling day in 2010, the President's approval was around 45% per Gallup. His disapproval then was below 50%; it is above 50% now.

And yeah, Gallup's just one pollster, but the trend is still instructive (all things being equal, the biases of one pollster remain fairly constant over time). The RCP average for Nov 2, 2010 showed approve/disapprove averages of 45.6/49.4. Today, his approval has slipped by 2.2 points, and his disapproval has risen by 3.5 points. A gap of -2.8 has widened to -8.5. In that context, an anticipated further net loss of House seats, and an expected loss of between six and twelve Senate seats, doesn't seem outlandish.

The 2006 election was obviously a good one for Democrats, but in some respects not as good as might appear to be the case:

www.apsanet.org/~lss/Newsletter/jan07/Cuzan.pdf

This focuses on the House, and polarization in that body has been a longstanding process (Republican gains in 2010 helped that process along, of course, but in surprisingly many states there wasn't much room for gerrymandering because levels of polarization were already so high).

Larry Sabato points out that, while negative economic signs almost certainly contributed to Republican woes, positive ones don't necessarily help:

www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/midterm-elections-republicans-really-could-win-2014-101802.html#.Uzm0EVKPIdU

Reagan's party lost 8 Senate seats in 1986, when GDP growth was over 4% and job growth was robust (the economy had nearly 8% more jobs overall than at the onset of recession under Reagan; Obama's economy still has fewer jobs than at the onset of recession under Bush).

The parenthesized point there also challenges the assertion that the economy is rosy: I don't think anybody anticipates a 2007-repeat for 2015, but, eight years on, there are still problems:

www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/nyt-is-badly-confused-on-the-state-of-the-economy

One more thing, because I know dj is firmly convinced that this Obamacare nonsense is just a flash in the pan and that the fever's going to break any day now, really, any day now: the perverse genius of the branding here is that Obamacare is a handy cipher for Obama himself. Dinging Obamacare is a way of dinging Obama without triggering accusations of racism or stimulating positive feelings about that empathetic charismatic guy in the White House (I don't have those positive feelings - I consider him an unprincipled charlatan - but I accept that many others do). Attacks on Obama via Obamacare have demonstrably had more traction than attacks on Obama directly, and nationalizing a six-year election is good strategy for Republicans.

[Virgil Showlion]

I'm just amazed anyone still cares whether it'll be the Party of Tweedledum or the Party of Tweedledee that claims the US Senate.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 31, 2014 13:40:43 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

And yeah, Gallup's just one pollster, but the trend is still instructive (all things being equal, the biases of one pollster remain fairly constant over time). The RCP average for Nov 2, 2010 showed approve/disapprove averages of 45.6/49.4. Today, his approval has slipped by 2.2 points, and his disapproval has risen by 3.5 points. A gap of -2.8 has widened to -8.5. In that context, an anticipated further net loss of House seats, and an expected loss of between six and twelve Senate seats, doesn't seem outlandish.

12 seats would indeed be outlandish.  zero seats would also be outlandish.

The 2006 election was obviously a good one for Democrats, but in some respects not as good as might appear to be the case:

www.apsanet.org/~lss/Newsletter/jan07/Cuzan.pdf

This focuses on the House, and polarization in that body has been a longstanding process (Republican gains in 2010 helped that process along, of course, but in surprisingly many states there wasn't much room for gerrymandering because levels of polarization were already so high).

Larry Sabato points out that, while negative economic signs almost certainly contributed to Republican woes, positive ones don't necessarily help:

www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/midterm-elections-republicans-really-could-win-2014-101802.html#.Uzm0EVKPIdU

Reagan's party lost 8 Senate seats in 1986, when GDP growth was over 4% and job growth was robust (the economy had nearly 8% more jobs overall than at the onset of recession under Reagan; Obama's economy still has fewer jobs than at the onset of recession under Bush).

1986 was a very bad year for Reagan.  his administration embroiled in the Iran/Contra affair.  they were in the midst of the worst federal deficit since FDR.  and there were increasing calls about his public speaking moving into fantasyland.

The parenthesized point there also challenges the assertion that the economy is rosy: I don't think anybody anticipates a 2007-repeat for 2015, but, eight years on, there are still problems:

www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/nyt-is-badly-confused-on-the-state-of-the-economy

One more thing, because I know dj is firmly convinced that this Obamacare nonsense is just a flash in the pan

i never said anything of the kind.  i suggested that it probably won't get worse from here.  period. 

and that the fever's going to break any day now, really, any day now: the perverse genius of the branding here is that Obamacare is a handy cipher for Obama himself. Dinging Obamacare is a way of dinging Obama without triggering accusations of racism or stimulating positive feelings about that empathetic charismatic guy in the White House (I don't have those positive feelings - I consider him an unprincipled charlatan - but I accept that many others do). Attacks on Obama via Obamacare have demonstrably had more traction than attacks on Obama directly, and nationalizing a six-year election is good strategy for Republicans.

so, do you write fiction professionally, or just on this board?

[Lizard King]

1986 was a very bad year for Reagan. his administration embroiled in the Iran/Contra affair. they were in the midst of the worst federal deficit since FDR. and there were increasing calls about his public speaking moving into fantasyland.

So bad, he had to struggle by on average job approval ratings of 60%, a mere 7% above his eight-year average, and a trifling 17% higher than Obama's today.

[Lizard King]

12 seats would indeed be outlandish. zero seats would also be outlandish.

Except for a phenomenon long recognized by poll-watchers and exemplified by the 2006 year you're using as a comparison - when one party in a two-party state has momentum in a nationalized election, toss-ups on the slate all tend to go their way.

Even the most cautious estimate sees the GOP picking up three seats currently under Democratic control. At least three others are in serious trouble. And at least six others are contestable, and the nature of some of those seats gives credence to the idea that national perspectives are coloring the local races. It's far enough out that local factors can reassert themselves - Mark Udall and Jeanne Shaheen, for two examples, are not unpopular or bad Senators for their states - but it's also the case that things can get worse: a couple of bad jobs reports, a worsening crisis in Crimea or Syria or Iraq or Libya or Egypt, a new terror attack on US soil, further corruption scandals embroiling the Democratic Party, a high-profile defection, the emergence of more hard data on the Obamacare rollout, the announcement of 2015 premium rate hikes, adverse decisions from SCOTUS embarrassing the government, any number of things that could make March look positively sunny for Obama and his party by comparison with the environment in November. Twelve represents the high-water mark of Republican Senate ambitions; I don't think zero is a realistic low-tide appraisal. I'm bullish on GOP 2014 prospects; I don't see too many Sharron Angles or Todd Akins, and lots of factors combine that would make even a Sharron Angle or Todd Akin more competitive in 2014 than they were in 2010.

[Lizard King]

One more thing, because I know dj is firmly convinced that this Obamacare nonsense is just a flash in the pan




i never said anything of the kind. i suggested that it probably won't get worse from here. period.

Dj, you've repeatedly expressed the opinion that the "Republican" government "shutdown" of October 2013 (neither a shutdown of government nor caused by Republicans, but stet) would have a more lasting impact on the 2014 election than Obamacare.

Never say never.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 31, 2014 14:56:12 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

One more thing, because I know dj is firmly convinced that this Obamacare nonsense is just a flash in the pan




i never said anything of the kind. i suggested that it probably won't get worse from here. period.

Dj, you've repeatedly expressed the opinion that the "Republican" government "shutdown" of October 2013 (neither a shutdown of government nor caused by Republicans, but stet) would have a more lasting impact on the 2014 election than Obamacare.

that was predicated on a shutdown in 2014 that (wisely) never materialized. 

Never say never.

i only say never when it is something i never said. 

edit: i just noted, with some requisite laughter, that it is now YOU that is predicting the staying power of a political foible, while at the same time criticizing me for it.  irony is more delicious than chocolate.  or was that your entire point?

[djAdvocate]

Mar 31, 2014 14:54:23 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

12 seats would indeed be outlandish. zero seats would also be outlandish.

Except for a phenomenon long recognized by poll-watchers and exemplified by the 2006 year you're using as a comparison - when one party in a two-party state has momentum in a nationalized election, toss-ups on the slate all tend to go their way.

not sure what you are saying here.  can you elaborate?

[Lizard King]

can you elaborate?

That's what the rest of that post was, an elaboration of the thesis.

I tend to do them that way.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 31, 2014 15:09:34 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

can you elaborate?

That's what the rest of that post was, an elaboration of the thesis.

I tend to do them that way.

didn't understand that (second paragraph).  oh well.  thanks for the effort.

edit: i will admit, however, that my eyes started to glaze over when you got to Egypt.

edit2: i will also agree that there are fewer Tea Party nutto's on the ticket this time, which bodes better for the GOP.  Nate Silver also pointed that out.

[Lizard King]

edit: i will admit, however, that my eyes started to glaze over when you got to Egypt.

That's something else I do. There is a fancy-schmancy word for writing in such a style as to reinforce the effect of the content, in fact there are several such. When I'm addressing a list of factors that I could, had I but patience and time, continue ad infinitum, I strive to convey to the reader a sense that the list has already actually been going on far longer than the reader's own lifetime.

Strategic tediousness

[djAdvocate]

Mar 31, 2014 15:29:30 GMT -5 Lizard King said:

edit: i will admit, however, that my eyes started to glaze over when you got to Egypt.

That's something else I do. There is a fancy-schmancy word for writing in such a style as to reinforce the effect of the content, in fact there are several such. When I'm addressing a list of factors that I could, had I but patience and time, continue ad infinitum, I strive to convey to the reader a sense that the list has already actually been going on far longer than the reader's own lifetime.

Strategic tediousness

oh man.  that is so good.  mind if i borrow it?

[Lizard King]

Nope. I'm pretty sure the TOS wouldn't allow me to mind in any practically noticeable way, anyway

[Phoenix84]

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with the relative economic conditions being better now as wexplaining most of the gap.

As for what it means for the 2014 elections, I still think the democrats are going be on the defensive, and lose seats, but it may not be as bad as originally thought.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 31, 2014 17:30:12 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with the relative economic conditions being better now as wexplaining most of the gap.

As for what it means for the 2014 elections, I still think the democrats are going be on the defensive, and lose seats, but it may not be as bad as originally thought.

i think it might be every bit as bad.  but in order for that to happen, the economy would have to stagnate between now and election day.

as Clinton famously said "it's the economy, stupid".

[djAdvocate]

quietly, Obama's approval reaches a (6) month high:

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

now at 44%

i am putting the Senate Control at tossup, now.  down from 60:40 GOP.

edit: oh, and by the way, Obama is now 14% higher than Bush was in 2006:

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_bush_first_term_job_approval.html

it really isn't that hard to beat the worst president in a century, after all. 

[djAdvocate]

oh, and let me guess: the right wing media has stopped reporting on presidential approval numbers in the last month, right?

[resolution]

Site 538 is still predicting the republicans take the senate this year, although its still early days. fivethirtyeight.com/features/early-senate-polls-have-plenty-to-tell-us-about-november/

fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/

[Virgil Showlion]

...and that it is now projected to cost significantly less than first thought...

You'll be piling on $1.32 trillion of additional debt in the next ten years as opposed to the $1.4 trillion originally projected. The revisions are largely because enough healthy suckers signed on to the ACA to avoid paying the no-insurance fines that premiums dropped marginally.

Or in other words...

[Virgil Showlion]

It also means that the fear that healthy younger people would not sign up did NOT come to pass.

Young, healthy people are still significantly underrepresented on the exchange sign-ups even if one assumes that 100% of the 18-to-24 year-olds who signed up are healthy, which is obviously a huge stretch.

And of course the bulk of that demographic signed on in the past 8 weeks, suggesting that they're doing it to avoid the punishing fines (i.e. "freedom tax") rather than because they genuinely want or need health insurance.

Finally, while I'm sure that the US "could find a way" to pay the additional debts (taxes can always go up), they're just one more layer on the exponentially growing heap of public entitlements that now accounts for 60+% of US federal government spending.

This is precisely what I've been saying would happen since Angel explained the PPACA to me in detail 18 months ago, only I figured the number of people signing onto the exchanges would be greater. My prediction remains that as wages continue to stagnate, more companies drop healthcare plans, and more Americans figure out that they can get subsidized ultra-expensive healthcare, you'll see the enrollment on the exchanges increase by as much as 100% over the next few years, with a commensurate increase in PPACA-related debt.

Spin it how you will, it is GOOD news.

It's news. Bad news for the young, healthy Americans who were compelled to sign up for health insurance they don't need. Good news for everyone else.

[djAdvocate]

Apr 22, 2014 22:28:03 GMT -5 resolution said:

Site 538 is still predicting the republicans take the senate this year, although its still early days. fivethirtyeight.com/features/early-senate-polls-have-plenty-to-tell-us-about-november/

fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/

my post is a critique of this analysis, which assumes that Obama's numbers will languish in the low 40's.  if this trend continues, he will be in the HIGH 40's, and his party will benefit from it.

edit: don't worry.  i am confident that Nate Silver will catch up with me in a month or two. 

[djAdvocate]

Apr 23, 2014 9:31:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It's news. Bad news for the young, healthy Americans who were compelled to sign up for health insurance they don't need. Good news for everyone else.

everyone has had health coverage for Emergency Care since Reagan.  the way that care was doled out before the ACA was the most regressive and expensive way imaginable.  now it is less so.  hopefully that trend will continue.

[djAdvocate]

incidentally, the ACA is also trending very well over the last six months (just like Obama).  on December 6th, it had 57.5% disapproval, and only 38.5% approval = -19%.  today it is at -11%.  approval is + 3%, disapproval is -6%.

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html