InTrade's odds on Obama to win in 2012 is 60.5%, too high or too low?

[ElephantMcDonk]

InTrade's odds on Obama to win in 2012 is 60.5%, too high or too low?

I know this message board is probably about 55% Pub/Tea, 30% Dem, 15% Indy, so I know what to expect in terms of answers...a lot of bias.

But, we can parse through the jibber jabber and maybe get one decent post out of every 10 on this thread to add some valued thought and perspective. Do you think that number is too high or too low?

I'd say, it's about right, maybe slightly low. I'd put the number at 60-65%. That's about the historical average of an incumbent. I'll explain my reasoning for my thought after I get some feedback as to what you all think.

 

[waltky]

Obama gettin' ready to run for re-election...

Obama's plan to win 2012 presidential election takes shape
February 8, 2011 Washington - President Obama's State of the Union, along with the speeches that have followed, point to a blend of Kennedy vision and Reagan optimism to 'win the future' and fend off GOP challengers in the 2012 presidential election.

After a State of the Union message long on soaring rhetoric and short on specifics, President Obama now has to deliver the goods. The unemployment rate has to keep heading downward or he can probably forget about a second term, analysts from both parties agree. But there's a long way to go between now and the 2012 presidential election, and there's more to the campaign than the monthly jobs report. Already, the larger outline of competing narratives is coming into view. For Mr. Obama, the themes are competitiveness and entrepreneurship, with a Kennedyesque focus on technology blended with Reaganesque optimism. Government is a partner of the private sector, not an impediment to it, Obama asserts.

For the Republicans, the counter(*)narrative centers on getting government out of the way, and exercising fiscal responsibility as the path to recovery. "We hold to a couple of simple convictions: Endless borrowing is not a strategy; spending cuts have to come first," Rep. Paul Ryan (R) of Wisconsin said in his GOP response to the State of the Union message. The Republican Party's image with the American public has improved of late. It is more favorable (47 percent) than unfavorable (43 percent) for the first time since 2005, according to a Gallup poll taken before the State of the Union message.

Though Obama didn't get a boost in public opinion from the address, his Gallup job approval rating is holding steady at around 50 percent, not a bad place to be at the start of a reelection cycle. But the renewed battle over health-care reform and the looming budget showdown – plus events in Egypt – are fast burying the memories of bipartisanship during the lame-duck Congress and Obama's well-received speech in Tucson, Ariz. The president's long-term goal of "winning the future" could easily get bogged down in the skirmishes of the day.

As a starting point, though, focusing on making the United States more competitive with some of the new economic superpowers is a smart move, says Julian Zelizer, a historian at Princeton University. "It puts Obama on the side of business and economic growth, and it makes Republicans look as if they don't really have a long-term vision other than cuts," says Professor Zelizer. "That said, Obama still has a tough sell. As compelling as that story is, he still has very high short-term unemployment numbers, which are of much more concern to Americans."

MORE

 

[Claudette]

No bias here EM.

I think OL'BO will get re-elected if the economy is rockin and unemployment is significantly lowered. I also think the Reps need to have a good candidate if they hope to take back the WH.

If the economy is still in the toilet, I think he will be a one termer.

 

[ElephantMcDonk]

as i posted earlier, 9 of 11 reelection campaigns have been successful since FDR. The two that failed were GHW Bush vs Clinton in 1992 and Carter vs Reagan in 1984. Both were unique circumstances where you had a far superior candidate run against the incumbent and the incumbent was weakened by a third party. In Bush's case, Perot, who was actually on the ballot. In Carter's case by Kennedy, who split the party. The other 9 were successful bids. I don't see any scenario where Obama's 2012 campaign plays out similar to either of those. I think 60.5% is too low.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Too low. Incumbency itself is a huge advantage, statistically.

Another thing to consider is that there have almost never been 2 recessions in one presidency,

and Obama has already had his.

 

[ElephantMcDonk]

I agree. I think Romney is probably their only hope and he'd have to catch an inside straight. ie, Obama would have to have a very bad next 18 months and Romney would have to win the hearts and minds of both the right wing of his party that's weary of him and the center of the overall electorate. That's a lot to ask of a guy who promoted Obamacare before Obama, is Mormon, which a chunk of his party doesn't like, is seen as a flip-flopper by many, or fake to put it bluntly, and he's up against a guy who needs to be weaker politically than he currently is. I don't see anyone else that really presents a challenge. There are guys like Chris Christie, who could jump in, but I doubt it. The rest of the field is awful. I mean really awful. Like 1988 Democratic Field awful.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's another good point. The GOP lineup of potential candidates is shit, to put it bluntly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I also don't think there's much if any history of a 1st term president having a double dip into low approval numbers, and Obama has already had his.

 

[gautama]

InTrade's odds on Obama to win in 2012 is 60.5%, too high or too low?



I know this message board is probably about 55% Pub/Tea, 30% Dem, 15% Indy, so I know what to expect in terms of answers...a lot of bias.

But, we can parse through the jibber jabber and maybe get one decent post out of every 10 on this thread to add some valued thought and perspective. Do you think that number is too high or too low?

I'd say, it's about right, maybe slightly low. I'd put the number at 60-65%. That's about the historical average of an incumbent. I'll explain my reasoning for my thought after I get some feedback as to what you all think.

Elephantcrap......you are fucking insane. Period.

 

[ElephantMcDonk]

InTrade's odds on Obama to win in 2012 is 60.5%, too high or too low?



I know this message board is probably about 55% Pub/Tea, 30% Dem, 15% Indy, so I know what to expect in terms of answers...a lot of bias.

But, we can parse through the jibber jabber and maybe get one decent post out of every 10 on this thread to add some valued thought and perspective. Do you think that number is too high or too low?

I'd say, it's about right, maybe slightly low. I'd put the number at 60-65%. That's about the historical average of an incumbent. I'll explain my reasoning for my thought after I get some feedback as to what you all think.

Elephantcrap......you are fucking insane. Period.

9 of 11 incumbents have been reelected, 82%. The two that weren't, were unique circumstances that won't be duplicated in 2012. The way you choose to refute that point is to call me insane. Ok. Good one.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Lol, are y'all trying to convince each other?

 

[Dr.Drock]

No dog in the fight, I'm not gonna vote for him or the R opposing him, but 60% sounds way too low. It sounded like in 2004 that everyone hated Bush and he still won, right now it just sounds like it did during the campaign. Reps hate Obama and Dems love him, so my guess is the numbers will be about the same with Obama winning rather easily.

 

[kaz]

Clinton was toast, then the Republicans nominated Bob "Viagra" Dole and saved his bacon. The Republican party's ability to nominate another W, HW, Bob Dole or John McCain is the ace up his re-election sleeve.

 

[ElephantMcDonk]

completely absurd. You're not even close to accurate. Bob Dole was a horrendous candidate, but Clinton would've won against a good candidate if they had come up with one. Clinton won by almost 9% and won every potential swing state. He was popular in 1996.

A better example is W Bush, who was not particularly popular in 2004, but went up against a weak candidate in Kerry and won.

 

[gekaap]

Too high? Too low? How about too early to tell? Alot of people were pretty sure that Bush had no meaningful chance of getting reelected, but we all know how that turned out.

 

[gekaap]

9 of 11 incumbents have been reelected, 82%. The two that weren't, were unique circumstances that won't be duplicated in 2012.

Where are you getting these numbers?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Again, if the economy stays in the crapper like it is now, O will lose. It it recovers and people REALLY do start heading back to work, O will have a decent chance. It's about the pocketbook.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

How can he miss with the
WTF campaign

 

[The Infidel]

How can he miss with the
WTF campaign

 

[JamesInFlorida]

9 of 11 incumbents have been reelected, 82%. The two that weren't, were unique circumstances that won't be duplicated in 2012.

Where are you getting these numbers?

Last 10 incumbents in an election are:

W. Bush-win
Clinton-win
H. W. Bush-loss
Reagan-win
Carter-loss
Nixon-win
LBJ-win
Ike-win
Truman-win
FDR-win(s)

So you figure roughly 8 of the past 10 incumbents who've run have been successful, or 80%. Now I'm no Obama supporter-and I'll most likely vote against him (a lot can happen in a couple of year-but as of right now I wouldn't back him).

But the fact is, it's very rare for an incumbent to lose in an election-especially when there's no strong candidate going against them (see Reagan). Quite frankly I think I the GOP will win the senate-but not the oval office.