Obama screwed in '12? Comparison of O and W's first terms.

Both George W and Obama invoke strong partisan reaction. W won his reelection in 2004 by a margin of 50.7% to 48.3%. Will O repeat? Will he fare better, or will he be out. The graphs run from the beginning of the presidency to the ending of the first term.

Take a look at this graph showing the first term approval rates of both Presidents as it relates to their own party:



Now take a look at how independents and the other party view the Presidents:



Now, this sure as hell isn't conclusive. But it's safe to say that at this point in his presidency W was doing a bit better than O. I know, I know, 9-11 v. the Recession, right. But those are just facts that resulted in this lopsidedness. Every presidency is full of these historic facts. Their existence may have led to the difference, but they sure as hell can't explain the differences away, meaning, make them non factors in the upcoming 2012 election.

Look at the support from other parties and independents again and scroll over to the 1050 day mark:



What's that red line? It coincides so well with a drop off of Independent and Democratic support for W. But it's not arbitrary. It's mid-June, when Democratic campaigning first kicked into high gear with the Iowa caucus. You better bet that point is going to be a drop off for O too for Republicans and Independents.

A year and a half. Can Obama make up the difference before election time?

If he agrees with the fake assassination attempts I think he will do well in '12.
With the allowed voter fraud in November I think he will have strong support in Congress.

Originally posted by Doctor G
If he agrees with the fake assassination attempts I think he will do well in '12.
With the allowed voter fraud in November I think he will have strong support in Congress.

Sorry, the people who own those machines are republicans, you should be happy

yay!!!

reply to post by Janky Red


Wow.

Yeah we should all be happy when our party commits fraud to win an election.

Those machines are owned by government. They're the ones who facilitate and perpetuate their useless existence, in case you haven't noticed, this fact doesn't seem to go away as a condition of which party is in power.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Wow.

Yeah we should all be happy when our party commits fraud to win an election.

Those machines are owned by government. They're the ones who facilitate and perpetuate their useless existence, in case you haven't noticed, this fact doesn't seem to go away as a condition of which party is in power.

Well it was not in the news but there were several liberal college groups that were considering destroying voting machines so that paper ballots would be used instead, I would certainly consider this to ensure FAIR
counts. I am absolutely against ALL voter,vote-counter fraud... However I suspect many would not really care
if the counter called it in the name of the person they were supporting. In 2000 the people who did not vote for Bush should have descended on Washington, until the votes were counted, all the votes that could be considered legal and valid votes, accounted for. Those machines can be manipulated relentlessly and they are
in full control of the person who tends to em which is NOT the government is it??? It is one single, corruptible
individual and computer CODE that is a pretty thin thread string supporting the whole of our nations principle.

I sincerely believe those machines should be blown up and think everyone should have the option to put their name on their ballot to ensure it is accounted for in the case of a dubious outcome.
You are of age and a legal, you vote is valid and should be recorded, exclamation point

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Wow.

Yeah we should all be happy when our party commits fraud to win an election.

Those machines are owned by government. They're the ones who facilitate and perpetuate their useless existence, in case you haven't noticed, this fact doesn't seem to go away as a condition of which party is in power.

Well it was not in the news but there were several liberal college groups that were considering destroying voting machines so that paper ballots would be used instead, I would certainly consider this to ensure FAIR
counts. I am absolutely against ALL voter,vote-counter fraud... However I suspect many would not really care
if the counter called it in the name of the person they were supporting. In 2000 the people who did not vote for Bush should have descended on Washington, until the votes were counted, all the votes that could be considered legal and valid votes, accounted for. Those machines can be manipulated relentlessly and they are
in full control of the person who tends to em which is NOT the government is it??? It is one single, corruptible
individual and computer CODE

that is a pretty thin thread string supporting the whole of our nations principle.

I sincerely believe those machines should be blown up and think everyone should have the option to put their name on their ballot to ensure it is accounted for in the case of a dubious outcome.
You are of age and a legal, you vote is valid and should be recorded, exclamation point

that's a great sentiment, let everyone who is legal, vote, WRITE IT, in english.

no chads, hanging like hemorrhoids on the anus of american democracy.

reply to post by snusfanatic


PART 2: What about Clinton?

Lets start out with this graph. Obama v. Clinton popularity:



Gee, they look remarkably similar don't they? Clinton around this time in his presidency broke down like this:

Democrats: 69
Independents: 43
Republicans: 16

Obama looks something like this:

Democrats: 77
Independents: 39
Republicans: 11

As would be expected. Obama has a slightly more left of center coalition then Clinton had. Many people point to the similarity in numbers/replacing a Bush/ recession hounded - as reasons why Obama will be able to replay the 1996 victory. Clinton's popularity looked somewhat like this, right after that second term victory:

Democrats: 87
Independents: 58
Republicans: 20

What caused the 10, 19, and 9 jump in his numbers? Well here it is:



Wow, look at that drop in unemployment. Notice either how he wasn't really given credit for the already dropping rate in 1994. Here's a graph ending in the election of 1994:



Here's Obama to date:



Clinton proves that it takes time for not only an economic recovery to benefit you, but for that recovery to be really internalized and reward you at the polls. Obama has had no such jobs recovery. While there might be similarities between 1994 and 2010 congressional races, Obama's unemployment numbers are severely lagging behind the groundwork laid for Clinton's 1996 victory.

When I first looked into the Clinton/Obama scenario, I expected to find reasons why Obama would get elected again in 2012. The unemployment charts speak for themselves though. I think is more damning for an Obama 2012 shot then the Bush scenario.

It turns out we might be right to lay Obama's presidency over the Clinton template, but we're just doing it the wrong way. Maybe we need to shift the Obama presidency 2 years into the future. Then, ask ourselves: Even if Obama pulls off a sharp decline between 2010 and 2012 the way Clinton did from 1992 to 1994, will it be enough to escape the lag in response that Clinton faced in 1994?

note: I recognize that many of the charts start before the Januarys that both Clinton and Obama took office in. If you've noticed this good for you, I'm guessing you still read them correctly then.

BUSH 1 AND REAGAN COMING NEXT....

reply to post by snusfanatic


Clinton actually produced jobs..

Obama has had the unemployment going down without making a single effing job..
Anyone who says he's done.... anything.. on the economy, is a tool.

reply to post by Rockpuck


exactly the point. people like to play fairy-tale land and pretend that obama is following some clinton template is is therefore going to win in 2012 the way clinton won in 1996. look at the freaking unemployment chart people! there is no template! obama is done for. even if he produces the jobs that clinton 'produced' between 1992 and 1994, 1994 shows that he's still screwed. game over man. game over.