Obama's secret advantage- people's inability to admit a mistake

[Truthmatters]

The republican party is dirty from top to bottom.

Your making a BIG mistake Toro

 

[Toro]

Also enjoy the poll...

One huge advantage incumbants enjoy. If you voted for them to start with, you usually won't admit you made a mistake, even to yourself in the privacy of a voting booth. So not surprisingly, of the seven incumbants who have stood for re-election since WWII, five actually increased their vote totals.

Eisenhower- 33 million in 1952, 35 million in 1956.
Nixon- 31 million in 1968, 46 million in 1972
Reagan 44 million in 1980, 54 million in 1984
Clinton - 45 million in 1992, 47 million in 1996
Bush-43- 50 million in 2000, 62 million in 2004

For purposes of this discussion, Truman, Johnson and Ford don't count as "incumbants", because they were filling out someone else's term.

"But, Joe," you ask, "what about the two guys who got LESS votes?" Ah, those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Carter got 40 million in 1976, when he barely edged out Jerry Ford's 39 million. In 1980 he got 35 million. Reagan got 5 million more than Ford, but Anderson got 6 million votes. More than likely, most of those 6 million Anderson voters came out of the folks who voted for Carter four years earlier.

Bush the Elder got 48 million in 1988, but a mere 39 million in 1992. Clinton did improve his vote total over Dukakis by 3 million votes, but the real bleeding loss was the 19 million who voted for H. Ross Perot.

In short, the presense of third party candidates enabled those people to admit they had made a mistake without forcing them to vote for the opposition party.

Incidently, didn't vote for Obama, probably won't vote for him next time. (Although if the GOP nominates Romney, I won't vote GOP, either.) But I do find this interesting.

To read more...

President Elect

That's an interesting analysis.

The one big, big caveat is that the winners who increased their vote total did so during good or significantly improving economic times. Perhaps a better analogy is 1932, when FDR blew Hoover out of the water. The economy isn't as bad today as it was in 1932, and we are slowly improving whereas the economy was still sinking during the voting in November 1932, but the causes of the economic mess today are more similar to the 1930s than to any other time since.

Also, I have heard pollsters say over the years that the best indicator for getting rid of incumbents in all elections is the "Right track/wrong track" poll, where they ask Americans if the country is on the right or wrong track. I can't confirm that, but it supposedly is a better indicator than any other polling question, such as whether you approve of his performance or like the guy. If this is true, then Obama is in deep trouble because the tilt to the "Wrong track" has been consistently running between -40 and -50, which is as lopsided as it has ever been.

 

[Truthmatters]

But the caveot is who do the people blame for the wrong track.

take a look at congressional approval

 

[editec]

Making an even BIGGER mistake (like voting for any7 of the current GOPers) won't abrogate the mistake made by voting for Obama.


What the GOP partisans are trying to convince people to do is a classic example of overcorrecting.

When you're swerving left and about to go off the road, overcorrecting with a hard right is no solution, either.

 

[JoeB131]

That's an interesting analysis.

The one big, big caveat is that the winners who increased their vote total did so during good or significantly improving economic times.

Not really. Ike, Nixon and Bush-43 actually had HIGHER unemployment when they stood for re-election than they did when they won the first time.

Perhaps a better analogy is 1932, when FDR blew Hoover out of the water. The economy isn't as bad today as it was in 1932, and we are slowly improving whereas the economy was still sinking during the voting in November 1932, but the causes of the economic mess today are more similar to the 1930s than to any other time since.

Yes, it was. But here's the catch. Hoover caught holy hell because he was part of the party that really encouraged the shenannigans. (The voters punished the GOP for FOUR straight cycles, to the point where they had lost 80% of their offices by 1936.) People saw the GOP as being in bed with the Wall Street types who crashed the economy. So even though the economy had only improved marginally in FDR's first term, he too was able to increase his margin in 1936.

Also, I have heard pollsters say over the years that the best indicator for getting rid of incumbents in all elections is the "Right track/wrong track" poll, where they ask Americans if the country is on the right or wrong track. I can't confirm that, but it supposedly is a better indicator than any other polling question, such as whether you approve of his performance or like the guy. If this is true, then Obama is in deep trouble because the tilt to the "Wrong track" has been consistently running between -40 and -50, which is as lopsided as it has ever been.

That might be a saving grace for the GOP, but I wouldn't count on it. Again, I'm just not seeing a whole lot of Obama voters telling me they'd do anything different this time.

 

[JoeB131]

Making an even BIGGER mistake (like voting for any7 of the current GOPers) won't abrogate the mistake made by voting for Obama.


What the GOP partisans are trying to convince people to do is a classic example of overcorrecting.

When you're swerving left and about to go off the road, overcorrecting with a hard right is no solution, either.

NO, but you do need to go somewhat to the right to get back on the road.

As long as we are using bad metaphors.

I think the current 7 have a problem is that none of them are encouraging, and the GOP decided that they were going to pick the candidate for us without letting us really have much of a say in the matter.

 

[Truthmatters]

Why would ANYONE want more of what the republicans have delivered for decades now?

wealth consolidation, war and economic disastor is their plan.

 

[JoeB131]

Why would ANYONE want more of what the republicans have delivered for decades now?

wealth consolidation, war and economic disastor is their plan.

One more time.

I would rather have my WORST year under Bush than my BEST year under Obama.

 

[Oldstyle]

it wasn't a mistake given the alternative.

and you guys haven't provided anyone who is a good alternative.

so there ya go.

Exactly. My vote for Obama was not a mistake given that the alternative could have made Sarah Palin president.

And there is no one currently trying for the Republican nomination that would be an improvement on Obama.

You know what I find most amusing about the "I voted for Barack because of Palin" refrain? We have Joe Biden as our current VP...a man who can't decide if he's senile or just really, really stupid. Compared to Biden, Palin's a MENSA candidate! Last time I checked McCain is very much still alive however so what difference would it have made?

In case you've forgotten, McCain was someone who Democrats considered offering the Vice Presidency to on an earlier ticket because he was such a moderate and worked so well across the aisle yet when he ran against the "sainted" Barack Obama you folks painted him as McBush. But it's Republicans that aren't bipartisan...right?

 

[Oldstyle]

Why would ANYONE want more of what the republicans have delivered for decades now?

wealth consolidation, war and economic disastor is their plan.

Because the Democrats haven't given us anything better and their fiscal policies are turning us into the next Greece?

 

[Oldstyle]

Making an even BIGGER mistake (like voting for any7 of the current GOPers) won't abrogate the mistake made by voting for Obama.


What the GOP partisans are trying to convince people to do is a classic example of overcorrecting.

When you're swerving left and about to go off the road, overcorrecting with a hard right is no solution, either.

Since when is voting for Romney overcorrecting with a "hard right", Ed? If you think Mitt Romney is a hard right candidate then I won't even waste my time debating politics with you.

 

[Toro]

Not really. Ike, Nixon and Bush-43 actually had HIGHER unemployment when they stood for re-election than they did when they won the first time.

The obvious differences were that the unemployment rate was falling into the election (1972 and 2004) and/or low, with the highest rate being 5.6% in 1972 while it was 5.5% in 2004 and 4.1% in 1956; and that we were fighting wars in 1972 and 2004 and the economy wasn't front and center.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt

This is the worst recession since the Depression. The only thing that matters is the economy. And though it is improving, there are still too many unemployed.

Yes, it was. But here's the catch. Hoover caught holy hell because he was part of the party that really encouraged the shenannigans. (The voters punished the GOP for FOUR straight cycles, to the point where they had lost 80% of their offices by 1936.) People saw the GOP as being in bed with the Wall Street types who crashed the economy. So even though the economy had only improved marginally in FDR's first term, he too was able to increase his margin in 1936.

The catch is that the 1932 election was in the midst of the deepest depression in generations. That's why the Republicans lost badly.

That might be a saving grace for the GOP, but I wouldn't count on it. Again, I'm just not seeing a whole lot of Obama voters telling me they'd do anything different this time.

The difference is that in 2010, it was as much a vote against Obama as it was for the Republicans. Many people were absolutely furious then. I don't see why they would switch back.

 

[Oldstyle]

See, that's the problem. A moderate Republican who would give us the fiscal policies that we need to steer back onto the middle of the road...you guys paint as McBush and a far right partisan. Mitt Romney served as a Republican Gov. in a HEAVILY Democratic state and got the job done. It's quite obvious that he can work across the aisle. But lets reelect a guy who's proven quite conclusively that he WON'T work across the aisle...and can't get the job done. That makes sense...right? (eye-roll)

 

[editec]

Making an even BIGGER mistake (like voting for any7 of the current GOPers) won't abrogate the mistake made by voting for Obama.


What the GOP partisans are trying to convince people to do is a classic example of overcorrecting.

When you're swerving left and about to go off the road, overcorrecting with a hard right is no solution, either.

Since when is voting for Romney overcorrecting with a "hard right", Ed? If you think Mitt Romney is a hard right candidate then I won't even waste my time debating politics with you.

Let's just say that Romney is a leaning harder right candidate than Obama, shall we?

 

[Oldstyle]

Making an even BIGGER mistake (like voting for any7 of the current GOPers) won't abrogate the mistake made by voting for Obama.


What the GOP partisans are trying to convince people to do is a classic example of overcorrecting.

When you're swerving left and about to go off the road, overcorrecting with a hard right is no solution, either.

Since when is voting for Romney overcorrecting with a "hard right", Ed? If you think Mitt Romney is a hard right candidate then I won't even waste my time debating politics with you.

Let's just say that Romney is a leaning harder right candidate than Obama, shall we?

Gee, Ed...going WAY out on a limb with that comment!

 

[hortysir]

But the caveot is who do the people blame for the wrong track.

take a look at congressional approval

The approval ratings are dismal for both parties of both houses.

Do you plan on replacing your senator or congress-critter?
Or are you like the majority of Americans that think congress sucks, except for their guy?

Put up or shut up.

 

[Oldstyle]

Making an even BIGGER mistake (like voting for any7 of the current GOPers) won't abrogate the mistake made by voting for Obama.


What the GOP partisans are trying to convince people to do is a classic example of overcorrecting.

When you're swerving left and about to go off the road, overcorrecting with a hard right is no solution, either.

Since when is voting for Romney overcorrecting with a "hard right", Ed? If you think Mitt Romney is a hard right candidate then I won't even waste my time debating politics with you.

Let's just say that Romney is a leaning harder right candidate than Obama, shall we?

Answer me this, Ed...

If Obama "is" reelected do you see his inability to work with the Republican side of the aisle (putting aside who you think is to blame) getting any better over the next four years?

Or do you think Romney would have more success with a bi-partisan approach to solving some of our problems given his history as a Republican Gov. in Democratic State?

 

[JoeB131]

Not really. Ike, Nixon and Bush-43 actually had HIGHER unemployment when they stood for re-election than they did when they won the first time.

The obvious differences were that the unemployment rate was falling into the election (1972 and 2004) and/or low, with the highest rate being 5.6% in 1972 while it was 5.5% in 2004 and 4.1% in 1956; and that we were fighting wars in 1972 and 2004 and the economy wasn't front and center.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt

This is the worst recession since the Depression. The only thing that matters is the economy. And though it is improving, there are still too many unemployed.

Yes, it was. But here's the catch. Hoover caught holy hell because he was part of the party that really encouraged the shenannigans. (The voters punished the GOP for FOUR straight cycles, to the point where they had lost 80% of their offices by 1936.) People saw the GOP as being in bed with the Wall Street types who crashed the economy. So even though the economy had only improved marginally in FDR's first term, he too was able to increase his margin in 1936.

The catch is that the 1932 election was in the midst of the deepest depression in generations. That's why the Republicans lost badly.

That might be a saving grace for the GOP, but I wouldn't count on it. Again, I'm just not seeing a whole lot of Obama voters telling me they'd do anything different this time.

The difference is that in 2010, it was as much a vote against Obama as it was for the Republicans. Many people were absolutely furious then. I don't see why they would switch back.

Wow, sounds like you are getting a bit desperate, aren't you. YOu've shoved your weird Mormon Robot down people's throats and now that he's going to lose, you are grasping for straws.

1) If the economy was "improving" in those other elections, it's improving now. It's off it's highs of 10%.

2) The Republicans lost badly in 1932 because theywere completely in control of all aspects of the government at that point- both houses of Congress and the Presidency and had been for 12 years. Obama can (and will) blame the GOP.

3) 2010 was a lot of Republican rage, but really, like all Midterms, most people didn't vote. Only about 70 million people voted in 2010 compared to some 130 million in 2008. So it's an apples to oranges comparison.

I think that there was a lot of energy created by the TEA movement, but that's been tempered by its villification in the media and the fact that the GOP establishment is doing just about all it can to renounce the TEA Party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama's secret advantage is JoeB.

 

[JoeB131]

Snarkey hasn't figured out he's on ignore yet.